ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from arranging international travel, including domestic legs booked by the assessee, is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and thus exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, collection charges received for timely payment of airport charges were not considered directly connected to international traffic operations and were upheld as taxable.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had successfully rebutted the presumption of income. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the entire record, especially the AO's admission regarding the availability of documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the nature and source of credit entries by providing the creditor's identity and PAN. The addition under section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The respondent (DR) did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that mere delay in filing Form No. 67 does not preclude the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit. The rules cannot override the Act, and filing of Form No. 67 is directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence initially, the bank statement showed withdrawals and deposits, suggesting the assessee had funds. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from arranging international travel, including domestic legs booked by the assessee, is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and thus exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, collection charges received for timely payment of airport charges were not considered directly connected to international traffic operations and were upheld as taxable.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from arranging international travel, including domestic legs booked by the assessee, is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and thus exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, collection charges received for timely payment of airport charges were not considered directly connected to international traffic operations and were upheld as taxable.

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from arranging international travel, including domestic legs booked by the assessee, is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and thus exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, collection charges received for timely payment of airport charges were not considered directly connected to international traffic operations and were upheld as taxable.

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from arranging international travel, including domestic legs booked by the assessee, is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and thus exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, collection charges received for timely payment of airport charges were not considered directly connected to international traffic operations and were upheld as taxable.

The Tribunal held that mere delay in filing Form No. 67 does not preclude the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit. The rules cannot override the Act, and filing Form No. 67 is directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the cash deposit was from the assessee's wife's business income and another portion was from earlier withdrawals. However, the claim regarding past savings was not believable.

The assessee's counsel fairly submitted that the issue is covered against the assessee by a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from arranging international travel, including domestic legs booked by the assessee, is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and thus exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, collection charges received for timely payment of airport charges were not considered directly connected to international traffic operations and were upheld as taxable.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had successfully rebutted the presumption of income. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. Therefore, the assessment order passed without valid approval is considered non-est.

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's share of PF and ESI beyond the due date stipulated in the respective Acts leads to disallowance, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that it is the assessee's onus to reconcile Form 26AS with documentary evidence of the holding company. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit such evidence.

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's share of PF and ESI beyond the due date stipulated in the respective Acts leads to disallowance, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was liable to be deleted. This decision was based on similar matters adjudicated by the Tribunal and PCIT, where the additions were not sustained.

The tribunal considered the petition filed by the assessee's authorized representative and permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee, considering the circumstances that prevented proper representation before the revenue authorities. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider these additional evidences.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning.

The Tribunal held that mere delay in filing Form No. 67 does not preclude the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit. The rules cannot override the Act, and filing of Form No. 67 is directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from arranging international travel, including domestic legs booked by the assessee, is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and thus exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. However, collection charges received for timely payment of airport charges were not considered directly connected to international traffic operations and were upheld as taxable.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's order in the assessee's own case, which had not been reversed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) the penalty was being levied under. The penalty was deleted on this technical ground.

The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding them invalid due to the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) not being issued and served after the filing of the return. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued and served after the filing of the return. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the issue of depreciation to the AO for consideration of additional evidence. Consequential penalty appeals were also remanded.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the delay. The assessee was permitted to file a condonation of delay application, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the delay. The assessee was permitted to file a condonation of delay application, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the delay. The assessee was permitted to file a condonation of delay application, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the delay. The assessee was permitted to file a condonation of delay application, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that revenue authorities had allowed depreciation and expenses as directed by the High Court. They also allowed the set-off of business income with losses from 'income from other sources', disallowing only unrelated expenses.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the issue of depreciation to the AO for consideration of additional evidence. Consequential penalty appeals were also remanded.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) relied on additional evidence not presented to the AO, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was void ab initio and bad in law. This was because the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the first proviso to Section 147, which requires specific allegations of non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under section 36(1)(va) for employee's contribution to PF/ESI is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo examination. This is due to the failure to admit crucial evidence like the collaboration agreement and potential misinterpretation of sale deed clauses by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was bad in law due to the non-service of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) at the correct address. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside as it did not survive.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made under Section 14A. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's order and previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for identical issues.

The Tribunal held that the charging of fee under Section 234E, as an adjustment under Section 200A, is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to take necessary steps for the refund of any amount deposited by the assessee on this count.

The Tribunal held that while generally one cannot do indirectly what is prohibited directly, additional evidence must be admitted if the assessee shows circumstances as per Rule 46A. The AO should have provided further opportunity if not satisfied with documents. The CIT(A)'s rejection was set aside, and the additional evidence was admitted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had noted that the amount of Rs. 5,85,00,000/- was offered as income in the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice, and Form No. 10 was furnished during the re-assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Association of Corporation and Apex Societies Handlooms vs. ADIT, which held that Form 10 could be furnished during re-assessment proceedings, even though the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Nagpur Hotels Association stated that information under Form 10 must be available before the assessment is completed. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not pointed out how the ratio of these decisions was inapplicable. Furthermore, the CIT(A) found no finding from the AO that the conditions for accumulation under Section 11(2) were not fulfilled. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that for valid assessment under Section 153A, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 must have been conducted on the assessee. Since no such search occurred, the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to issue notices and frame assessments under Section 153A.