ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal found the revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted the revenue's challenge to the jurisdiction of the CIT(A). Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's contention regarding the jurisdictional defect to be valid. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's contention regarding the jurisdictional defect. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's contention regarding the jurisdictional defect. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the revenue's challenge to its own CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be surprising. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's challenge to the jurisdiction of its own CIT(A) to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's challenge to its own CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's contention regarding the jurisdictional defect. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's contention regarding the jurisdictional defect to be valid. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contribution based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, it deleted the disallowance for professional fees as the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of electricity, rent, and security expenses required de-novo consideration by the AO, as the lower authorities had not properly examined the documents produced by the assessee. The disallowance of gift and penalty expenses was dismissed as the CIT(A) had already directed verification to avoid double addition. The disallowance of other business expenses was also remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found a contradiction in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee had indeed submitted documents, yet the CIT(A) stated otherwise. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found a contradiction in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee had indeed submitted documents, yet the CIT(A) stated otherwise. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue was no longer res integra as similar arrangements were accepted by the Revenue or ruled in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches in previous assessment years. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Revenue was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of proper service of notices on the assessee and no reference to the assessee's email submissions in the CIT's order. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed in the year the corresponding income is taxable, as per Rule 37BA. Since the assessee offered the income to tax in AY 2016-17 and had not claimed the TDS credit in AY 2017-18, the credit should be granted for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute by paying the requisite taxes under the VSV Scheme, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the dominant activity of the assessee is promoting sports, and accepting sponsorships does not make its activities commercial. The proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to decide the applicability of the benefits from AY 2020-21 after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided specific findings on whether the sustained additions were based on 'incriminating materials' found during the search. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to decide the applicability of the benefits from AY 2020-21 after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, even if considered as such, should not be brushed aside. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are distinct from rent, as they are for maintenance of common areas and not for exclusive use of the property by the lessee. Therefore, TDS under Section 194C is applicable, not Section 194I.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided specific findings on whether the sustained additions were based on 'incriminating materials' found during the search. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot question the prudence of a businessman's transactions. Since the transactions were not found to be bogus, the denial of adjustment for interest expenditure was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided specific findings on whether the sustained additions were based on 'incriminating materials' found during the search. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that aggregating transactions with related and unrelated parties for benchmarking is incorrect. It also found the TPO's tinkering of the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) inappropriate and upheld the DRP's direction to recompute ALP by restricting it to international transactions with AEs.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh assessment. Therefore, the penalty proceedings based on that addition would not sustain. The appeal challenging the deletion of the penalty was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that no litigant should suffer due to the counsel's lapses and that the ends of justice require the assessee to be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the Rs. 50 lakhs threshold and that the issue did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as per the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal before the High Court was dismissed due to low tax effect. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be without substance.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The Revenue Department did not dispute this fact.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the Department had issued Form No. 5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. It found the CIT(A)'s dismissal on a technicality without proper opportunity to be against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that while the AO invoked Section 144, the assessee claimed to have provided substantial documentation via email which was not verified. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of documents and a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the bank statements procured by the AO, thus denying a fair opportunity to rebut. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to a settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Tribunal allowed this request.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to ensure natural justice and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the CIT(A)'s finding that the reassessment proceedings were void, their appeal on merits was infructuous and liable to be dismissed.