ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the Revenue could not provide any order reversing the decision in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty deletion was upheld.

The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence, including bank statements and receipts, which demonstrated that the property investment was funded by bank loans. The Tribunal found the source of investment to be sufficiently proved and upheld the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that rejecting audited books of account solely on the basis of photocopies of bills and a marginal fall in net profit is not justified. The insignificant variation in net profit ratio does not warrant such a drastic action without further evidence of unreliability.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the quantum dispute was settled under the VSVS Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the AO for decision as per the relevant provisions of the VSVS Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions on cash credit and disallowances of expenses based on additional evidence without seeking the AO's comments, thereby ignoring Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The cross-objection by the assessee was not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was taking a contradictory stance by writing off similar expenses from earlier years as an abandoned project while claiming current year expenses as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to examine the nature of the expenditure and disallowed expenses identical to those written off as abandoned.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal held that once the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied is deleted, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance cannot be treated as unexplained income merely because the financial particulars were not filled in the electronically filed return. The balance sheet and computation filed subsequently, showing the closing cash balance for the previous year, were sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds raised by the assessee and passed an irrelevant order. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s directions to verify the assessee's loss calculation and allow it if found correct, considering subsequent decisions in the assessee's own case. Both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered crucial facts, such as the closure of the business and past financial records. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the facts were confusing and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly examined them. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue, including examining Shri Sanjay Chauhan and Shri Nepal Singh, and to verify bank transactions.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s directions to verify the assessee's loss calculation and allow it if found correct, considering subsequent decisions in the assessee's own case. Both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The assessee's counsel filed an application requesting to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the material relied upon by the AO, which was based on an investigation report. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to allow the assessee to present evidence and ensure a fair hearing.

The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were valid, the addition on merits was made without adhering to principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo determination.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was taking a contradictory stance by writing off similar expenses from earlier years as an abandoned project while claiming current year expenses as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to examine the nature of the expenditure and disallowed expenses identical to those written off as abandoned.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were subsequently deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty is deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and proceeded ex-parte. The CIT(A) had already excluded the disallowance under Section 14A from penalty. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that penalty was leviable on the remaining amount of Rs. 95,17,010/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, citing various judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal decided to focus solely on ground number 2.2, which pertains to the transfer pricing adjustment for outstanding receivables. Other grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Assessing Officer had already granted relief after verification, following the CIT(A)'s directions.

The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order, which was then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 14A should be deleted as the assessee's own funds exceeded exempt income. Regarding the land sale, the Tribunal directed the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation as per Section 50C.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54F, 'purchase' includes acquiring interest in a property through documents like GPA or agreement to sell, even without a registered sale deed. The residential nature of the properties was also established.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdiction under Section 153C as the documents were impounded during a survey (Section 133A) and not seized under Section 132. Therefore, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without proper jurisdiction as the documents were impounded under Section 133A (survey) and not seized under Section 132. Therefore, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition made on account of estimated return on investments in M/s. Waberton Ltd., finding the estimate to be baseless. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash availability from his business.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdiction under Section 153C as the documents were impounded during a survey (Section 133A) and not seized under Section 132. Therefore, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdiction under Section 153C as the documents were impounded during a survey (Section 133A) and not seized under Section 132. Therefore, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for Section 153C starts from the date of receiving seized documents from the AO of the searched person. Since this date (21.03.2014) made the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 time-barred, the notices and subsequent assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for Section 153C starts from the date of receiving seized documents from the AO of the searched person. Since this date (21.03.2014) made the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 time-barred, the notices and subsequent assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessee availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issued Form No. 5, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department are liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 14A, which was introduced later, cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessee availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issued Form No. 5, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department are liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the sale of Carbon Credits constitutes a capital receipt and not business income. Therefore, it cannot be taxed as regular income or book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessee availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department issued Form No. 5, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department are liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee. The application stated that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to the low tax effect involved and to put an end to the ongoing litigation. The assessee also requested a caveat that would allow them to seek revival of the appeal if the revenue initiated any new or subsequent penal or other action. The Tribunal, noting the contents of the application, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was announced in the open court in the presence of the Senior DR. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal, as it was withdrawn by the assessee.