ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an order in the name of a deceased person. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) to correct the name in the order and then proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee might have had some cash in hand or past savings, but found the explanation unsatisfactory. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 30% of the disputed amount.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to comment on material evidence like bank statements of the donors and based their findings purely on suspicion. Therefore, the additions made were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was void ab initio because the show cause notice was a mere replication of the Income Tax Officer's letter, indicating a lack of independent application of mind by the PCIT.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loans from the four parties. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal heard the Learned DR and perused the records. In view of the assessee's request, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal heard the Learned DR and perused the records. In view of the assessee's request, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated that the redeposited amount was an unutilized portion of his own withdrawn funds. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was not completed before the search, thus the Kabul Chawla principle regarding completed assessments did not apply. The Tribunal also found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of cash gifts as per Section 69A.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities made the addition without independently verifying the source of the funds and without conducting further inquiry. The Tribunal set aside the orders and directed the AO to frame the assessment afresh after carrying out necessary inquiry.

The tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E was not tenable for defaults committed prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the impugned late fee required to be deleted.

The tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E was not tenable for defaults committed prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the impugned late fee required to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the Will lacked specific details of jewellery, it could not be inferred that no jewellery was bequeathed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant a set-off of 500 gms of jewellery as per CBDT Instruction for the grandmother's share.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, considering their substantial income, tax history, and cash book entries showing withdrawals and opening balances. The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus regarding the cash.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowed funds for the expansion of the assessee's clinic is revenue in nature and should be allowed as a deduction. Reliance was placed on various judicial precedents supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to the non-service of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The assessment was accordingly quashed.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities misinterpreted the concept of 'permanent home available' and erred in not considering other parameters of Article 4(2)(b) of the DTAA. The findings of the lower authorities regarding taxing the foreign assignment income in India were liable to be reversed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for set off of business loss against the income assessed under Section 68 as per Section 71 of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO for verification and allowing the set off.

The Tribunal deleted the additions to income, finding they were made without confronting the assessee with evidence or allowing cross-examination, thus violating principles of natural justice. However, the penalty for non-compliance with notices was upheld as the assessee's explanations were found to be self-contradictory.

The Tribunal deleted the additions to income, finding that the Assessing Officer relied on statements without confronting the assessee or allowing cross-examination. However, the penalty for non-compliance with notices was upheld as the assessee's explanation was found to be self-contradictory.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any explanation or rebuttal from the assessee regarding the issues involved, the lower authorities were justified in confirming the additions/disallowances. The assessee's continued indifference warranted no interference.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by withdrawals from the assessee's proprietorship firm and cash profits. The gift from the mother was accepted based on her affidavit, and the rental income addition was invalid due to the tenant's incorrect TDS deduction.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the services constituted FTS requires a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer, considering the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Bharti Cellular, which emphasizes the need for expert opinion on human intervention. The Tribunal also noted a lack of detailed examination of evidence by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search, especially when no incriminating material is found. Completed assessments can only be interfered with under Section 153A if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction and did not present any evidence to support its grounds of appeal. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance. The AO failed to record the required satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D, especially when the assessee had made a suo-motu disallowance and had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance. The AO failed to record the required satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D, especially when the assessee had made a suo-motu disallowance and had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance. The AO failed to record the required satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D, especially when the assessee had made a suo-motu disallowance and had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers found during a search are unsustainable. Assessments under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search, and not on surmises.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity of hearing by the PCIT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the issue to the PCIT for re-adjudication, directing that a sufficient opportunity of hearing be provided.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the services constituted FTS requires a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer, considering the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Bharti Cellular, which emphasizes the need for expert opinion on human intervention. The Tribunal also noted a lack of detailed examination of evidence by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017, no further verification is required for cash deposits up to Rs. 2,50,000/- for individuals without business income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the assessee was not confronted with the statement of a third party used for making the addition, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination provided. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to being time-barred and the incompleteness of the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal could not be entertained.

The Tribunal held that while there might be a personal element in foreign travel, the entire claim cannot be disallowed. Following the rule of consistency from previous years, a 30% disallowance was deemed sufficient to cover potential revenue leakage.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed before the wrong forum and was also barred by limitation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on incorrect factual premises, as the assessee had filed a return of income declaring capital gains. Furthermore, the approval for reassessment was found to be mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and all consequent orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had consistently paid similar interest rates in earlier and succeeding years without disallowance. The Tribunal found no change in facts or circumstances to warrant different treatment for the current year.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and in fructuous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had consistently paid similar interest rates in earlier and succeeding years without disallowance. The Tribunal found no change in facts or circumstances to warrant different treatment for the current year.