ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee was unheard before the Assessing Officer on the points of jurisdiction and merits, and the assessment order was ex-parte. Therefore, the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer with proper jurisdiction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was unheard before the Assessing Officer on the points of jurisdiction and merits, and the assessment order was ex-parte. Therefore, the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer with proper jurisdiction to pass a fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it lacked proper inquiry and failed to consider the jurisdictional High Court's consistent view that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable. Therefore, the revisionary power was rightly exercised.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it lacked proper inquiry and failed to consider the jurisdictional High Court's consistent view that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable. Therefore, the revisionary power was rightly exercised.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it lacked proper inquiry and failed to consider the jurisdictional High Court's consistent view that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable. Therefore, the revisionary power was rightly exercised.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the disallowance under Section 14A. It upheld the assessee's claim for additional depreciation. The issue of sale of FSI was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal regarding prior period expenses was dismissed based on consistency and earlier ITAT orders.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided necessary details and the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on the CIT(A)'s reasoning and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided necessary details and the CIT(A) had passed a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on the CIT(A)'s reasoning and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective and does not apply to the current assessment year. It also relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Court judgments to allow depreciation and carry forward of deficits.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI remitted beyond the due date specified under the respective Acts is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va). This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for provision for maintenance, following a coordinate bench's decision in earlier years. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to ESI/PF is to be made if not deposited by the due date, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld that such adjustments can be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's stated objects were vague and general, and did not justify bifurcating revenue into rental income and consultancy fees. Therefore, the income could not be treated as business income.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. It held that if a liability is not considered unascertained under normal provisions, it cannot be disallowed under Section 115JB. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the identity and creditworthiness of the group entities were established through confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and service of summons. The flow of funds was supported by documentary evidence and balance sheets.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in agreement with both parties, dismissed the appeals. However, liberty was granted to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to seek restoration of the appeals if the Committee of Creditors decided to do so.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The reliance on the 'Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd.' case was deemed outdated.

The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue retains the liberty to seek restoration if any future infirmity is found.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the first ground, deleting the addition made under Section 68 as the advances were proven to be genuine sale considerations. However, the Tribunal dismissed the second ground, upholding the disallowance of the deduction claimed for dividend income.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in agreement with both parties, dismissed the appeals. However, liberty was granted to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to seek restoration of the appeals if the Committee of Creditors decided to do so.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The dispute was considered resolved.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to file a condonation of delay application or provide material to establish the appeal was filed on time.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries but noted that previous ITAT decisions and a Delhi High Court ruling had accepted a commission rate of 0.5% in similar cases. Therefore, the AO was directed to estimate the commission at 0.5% instead of 1.8%.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases might have been from dubious parties, disallowing 100% of the purchases was incorrect when sales were not doubted. The Tribunal directed that the profit embedded in such purchases should be brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted as the disallowances were due to non-deduction of TDS on actual payments and the additions were based on preponderance of probabilities without concrete evidence. The notice for penalty was also found to be mechanically issued.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to HUDA for EDC. This is because HUDA acts as an executing agency for the State Government, and payments to the State Government are not subject to TDS under Section 194C.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to HUDA for EDC. This is because HUDA acts as an executing agency for the State Government, and payments to the government are exempt from TDS obligations.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable for non-deduction of TDS on payments made to HUDA for EDC. This is because HUDA acts as an executing agency for the State Government, and payments to the government are exempt from TDS obligations.

The Tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee as a partner on retirement from a partnership firm is not liable to capital gains tax. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on this account was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted as the disallowances were due to non-deduction of TDS on actual payments and the additions were based on preponderance of probabilities without concrete evidence. The notice for penalty was also found to be mechanically issued.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the present appeal filed before the Delhi Bench, as the appeal filed before the Chandigarh Bench had been transferred to the Delhi Bench. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted as the disallowances were due to non-deduction of TDS on actual payments and the additions were based on preponderance of probabilities without concrete evidence. The notice for penalty was also found to be mechanically issued.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were null and void due to the absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the assessee filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that a 5% mark-up on IT services is acceptable and sufficient to cover the associated enterprise's costs and provide an arm's length return. It also directed that deductions under Section 80G and credit for TDS be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the sum received by the assessee as a partner on retirement from a partnership firm is not liable to capital gains tax. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on this account was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had properly considered additional evidence and remand reports from the AO, which supported the genuineness of the transactions and expenses.

The Tribunal held that Majestic Research Services & Solutions Ltd. was a rightly included comparable as its accounting methods reflected true profits and there were no mergers/acquisitions impacting the current year's P&L. However, Axis My India Limited was excluded due to functional dissimilarity, primarily its engagement in printing custom documents and a significant portion of revenue from advertisements and periodicals.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 5,85,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the creditors before any of the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were covered by the decisions of a Coordinate Bench in earlier years, and no change in facts or circumstances was pointed out. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the previous conclusions.

The Tribunal held that a 5% mark-up on IT services is acceptable and sufficient to cover the associated enterprise's costs and provide an arm's length return. It also directed that deductions under Section 80G and credit for TDS be allowed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 5,94,35,000/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions before any of the authorities.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases might have been from dubious parties, disallowing 100% of the purchases was incorrect when sales were not doubted. The Tribunal directed that the profit embedded in such purchases should be brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases might have been from dubious parties, disallowing 100% of the purchases was incorrect when sales were not doubted. The Tribunal directed that the profit embedded in such purchases should be brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases might have been from dubious parties, disallowing 100% of the purchases was incorrect when sales were not doubted. The Tribunal directed that the profit embedded in such purchases should be brought to tax.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance on cartage and stores & spares expenses. However, the issue of Long Term Capital Gain was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be imposed based on the legal fiction of Section 50C. The AO was directed to recalculate the concealed capital gain based on the actual sale value and the allowed cost of acquisition. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding no cogent material from the assessee to disprove the AO's findings regarding the bogus nature of the share capital.

The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal, in light of the withdrawal application, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on orders in the purchasers' cases, without detailed discussion. Considering the AO's reliance on incriminating material and the lack of full context from the purchasers' appellate orders, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for re-examination.