ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to the non-removal of defects and the assessee's casual and negligent approach. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, the availability of interest-free funds exceeding investments needs verification. Regarding Section 10AA, common expenses and interest allocation to the exempt unit require further examination by the AO.

The tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment order, making the revised return valid. Consequently, the notice under Section 143(2) was considered to be within the prescribed limitation period from the date of the revised return.

The Tribunal held that the JKHCL contract did not constitute a PE as the services were advisory and for a short duration, with limited employee presence. It also noted that the AO did not establish a PE for the JVL contract. The 'Force of Attraction' rule was deemed inapplicable as no common link between projects was established.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to issue summons to the concerned entities, and that these entities were still active. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary inquiry with the concerned entities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the liquidated damages were indeterminable and contingent during the year under consideration. The amount was crystallized and offered as income in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A, the availability of interest-free funds exceeding investments needs verification. Regarding Section 10AA, common expenses and interest allocation to the exempt unit require further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment disallowance to the AO for verification of actual payment in subsequent years and allowed deduction on that basis. For Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance for administrative expenses considering only investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the JKHCL contract did not constitute a PE as the services were advisory and for a short duration, with limited employee presence. It also noted that the AO did not establish a PE for the JVL contract. The 'Force of Attraction' rule was deemed inapplicable as no common link between projects was established.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI, even if made before the due date of filing the return of income, is not eligible for deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the receipts for hiring vessels for oil exploration activities are covered under Section 44BB and are not royalty as per Explanation 2(iva) to Section 9(1)(vi), which carves out an exception for amounts covered under Section 44BB. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and rectify any double counting of revenue and allow credit for TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the AO to issue summons to M/s. Fressia Infratech Ltd. and that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conducted independent inquiry. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct necessary inquiry with the concerned entity.

The Tribunal decided that all issues raised in the appeal were covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own cases for preceding years. Therefore, the appeal was allowed following that precedent.

The Tribunal held that payments to a German partnership firm for professional services like due diligence and valuation do not fall under FTS as per the India-Germany DTAA. It also found that Article 14 of the treaty, concerning Independent Personal Services, is restricted to individuals and not partnership firms.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to remove the defects by filing grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already suo-moto disallowed expenses related to portfolio management and the revenue could not controvert this or point to distinguishing facts from a prior year's identical issue, no further disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.

The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment disallowance to the AO for verification of actual payment in subsequent years and allowed deduction on that basis. For Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance for administrative expenses considering only investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment disallowance to the AO for verification of actual payment in subsequent years and allowed deduction on that basis. For Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance for administrative expenses considering only investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of GP rate, finding the assessee failed to provide supporting documents. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of unsecured loans, stating the creditors' capacity and creditworthiness to advance such sums were not substantiated.

The Tribunal remanded the business promotion expenses issue to the AO for fresh determination, allowing additional evidence. For repair and maintenance expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 25% of the total expenses. The prior period expenses issue was also remanded to the AO for factual determination.

The Tribunal found that both assessment and first appellate proceedings were decided ex parte. Since the assessee's sole grievance was lack of opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It was held that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as the assessee's evidence was not properly examined.

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, the availability of interest-free funds exceeding investments needs verification. Regarding Section 10AA, common expenses and interest allocation to the exempt unit require further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment disallowance to the AO for verification of actual payment in subsequent years and allowed deduction on that basis. For Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance for administrative expenses considering only investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on replacing old bulbs/tube lights with LED lights and other routine repairs were consumable in nature and not capital expenditure. The assessee did not contest the disallowance of advertisement expenses.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to adhere to the mandatory waiting period after dismissing the assessee's objections rendered the reassessment proceedings void and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that since the additions did not emanate from documents seized during the search, and in light of the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, no additions could be made. Therefore, the impugned additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses was ad hoc and lacked valid reasoning. Since the AO did not provide specific reasons for restricting expenses or discuss their nature and quantum, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses was ad hoc and lacked valid reasoning. Since the AO did not provide specific reasons for restricting expenses or discuss their nature and quantum, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses was ad hoc and lacked valid reasoning. Since the AO did not provide specific reasons for restricting expenses or discuss their nature and quantum, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the source of the fixed deposits of Rs. 143.94 crores as being from inward remittances. The identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of NB Ventures Ltd. were established, and the transaction was found to be genuine.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses was ad hoc and lacked valid reasoning. Since the AO did not provide specific reasons for restricting expenses or discuss their nature and quantum, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI, if not paid within the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va), is not allowable as a deduction, even if paid before the due date of filing the return. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of expenses was ad hoc and lacked valid reasoning. Since the AO did not provide specific reasons for restricting expenses or discuss their nature and quantum, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to remove the defects by filing grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was made on a purely ad hoc basis without any valid reasoning. The assessee had provided details of its employees and expenses, and similar businesses in preceding years did not face such disallowances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the ex parte order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the issues for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A regarding interest-free funds and administrative expenses needed verification. For Section 10AA, it was held that common expenses not separately accounted for by the eligible unit, and interest expenses where the exempt unit's profits funded its operations, required further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viia) is not applicable when the sale price of shares is more than the fair market value. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The tribunal found that the lower authorities had not categorically determined whether the declared income was business income or income from other sources. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination and a definitive finding.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was properly explained. Since the revenue authorities did not provide evidence that the withdrawn amount was utilized elsewhere, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A, without further corroborating material, cannot be the sole basis for making an addition. The assessee had provided various documents to support its contentions.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the addition of cash receipts, treating them as income from other sources. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to bogus purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the addition of cash receipts, treating them as income from other sources. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the disallowed amount was employer's contribution to PF and ESI, which was paid before the due date of filing the return. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred by sustaining the addition without considering the rectification.

The Tribunal held that the search warrant was validly issued and served, as it was issued in the name of the assessee and served at a place where the issuing authority had reason to suspect the presence of relevant documents. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s annulment of the assessment was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the fixed deposits as being out of salary income, supported by bank statements showing auto-sweep facility and correlation of deposits with salary credits. The AO was not justified in making the addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievance included a lack of adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the application for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as the mandatory approval under Section 151(2) was not obtained. Consequently, the assessment order was declared null and void.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings based solely on AIR information without further verification or application of mind. The AO also recorded incorrect facts regarding the bank account ownership and deposit amount, rendering the reassessment proceedings and consequent orders unsustainable.