ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the relevant CBDT circulars providing exceptions to monetary limits for appeals were not retrospective. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on maintainability grounds.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) did not properly deal with the records related to sales and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of ledger accounts and bills, with a direction to provide a hearing as per natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the additional claims lodged by the assessee were not admitted by the parties, and thus no income had accrued. The corresponding debit entry was made to nullify the hypothetical income, not as an actual expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the transactions constituted operating leases and that depreciation under Section 32 is allowable if the asset is used for the purpose of business, irrespective of whether the assessee is the direct user. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the transactions constituted operating leases and that depreciation under Section 32 is allowable if the asset is used for the purpose of business, irrespective of whether the assessee is the direct user. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) did not properly deal with the records related to sales and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of ledger accounts and bills, with a direction to provide a hearing as per natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the difference between Form 26AS and the books was reconciled over several years and the assessee's audited books should be considered correct. It also held that TDS was not required on social security contributions for expat employees as they did not constitute income in the hands of the employees.

The Tribunal held that the matter cannot proceed due to the overriding provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Revenue can revive the appeal after the moratorium period or company revival.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the significant delay in filing and the absence of any explanation or condonation application. The merits of the grounds raised were not considered.

The Tribunal restored the issue of cost of improvement to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to lack of proper verification. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow indexation of cost of improvement and acquisition with reference to the year the previous owner acquired the asset, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine because it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit without any application for condonation of delay or explanation for the delay. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to condone delay.

The Tribunal held that the issue of classifying Cisco IP Phones and determining the applicable depreciation rate requires detailed examination of their functional dependency on computers. The matter was remitted to the AO for re-adjudication based on the ratio laid down by a previous ITAT order.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under Section 271C, agreeing that the Assessing Officer's uncertainty regarding the non-deduction of TDS and the assessee's non-contumacious conduct justified the deletion. For the other appeal, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal restored the issue of cost of improvement to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to lack of proper verification. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow indexation of cost of improvement and acquisition with reference to the year the previous owner acquired the asset, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the dispute between the assessees and the revenue was settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, the present appeals have become academic and infructuous. The settlement under the scheme does not impact the appeals of M/s Roots Developer Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under Section 271C, agreeing that the Assessing Officer's uncertainty regarding the non-deduction of TDS and the assessee's non-contumacious conduct justified the deletion. For the other appeal, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents did not belong to the assessee, as the company was incorporated after the date of the agreement and the documents did not explicitly name the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 37 of the Act cannot be imported into the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. Adjustments to book profit are limited to those specified in the Explanation to Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the issue was revenue neutral as the project was completed in subsequent years and the percentage of completion method was accepted for those years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided bank statements and explanations to the AO, but the AO had already passed an ex-parte assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not independently verify the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration and re-decision after examining the evidence and allowing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO must specify the nature of the default in the penalty notice for it to be valid. An omnibus notice without specifying the charge renders the penalty levied without jurisdiction. The matter was remitted to the AO to ascertain the factual veracity of the penalty notice.

The Tribunal restored the issue of sales to M/s Haryana Traders to the Assessing Officer for verification of statutory returns and supporting evidence. The addition made under Section 40A(3) for payments to M/s Vasu Steels was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide contrary evidence.

The tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, making the appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.