ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal found that the authorities below ought to have given the benefit of the cost of acquisition to the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and to sub-serve substantive justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the commission income should be calculated on a net basis after considering expenses, using a rate of 0.47%. It also ruled that the valuation of the property should be based on circle rates and that a protective addition was not sustainable as a substantive addition was already made in another case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with Section 194C(6) by obtaining the PAN of the payees. The PCIT's contention regarding the non-furnishing of declarations was found to be based on amended provisions not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether advances received for work in progress constitute taxable income needs further examination. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee provides necessary details.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders. It was held that assessments cannot be made on a dissolved entity, especially when the Assessing Officer was aware of the dissolution prior to issuing notices.

The Tribunal held that the assessments made under Section 153A were not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, it was found that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A without such material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders. It was held that assessments cannot be made on a dissolved entity, especially when the Assessing Officer was aware of the dissolution prior to issuing notices.

The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions and the Delhi High Court's affirmation, holding that credit balances in client accounts are not income and that disallowance under Section 14A requires a nexus between expenditure and exempt income, which was not established.

The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) issued after a notice for regular assessment under Section 143(2) is legally invalid. This is based on the principle that once regular assessment proceedings commence, the summary procedure under Section 143(1) is no longer available.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and proof of the depositors' financial capacity and past transactions. The AO's own remand report also indicated a lack of basis for the addition.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether advances received for work in progress constitute taxable income needs further examination. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee provides necessary details.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders. It was held that assessments cannot be made on a dissolved entity, especially when the Assessing Officer was aware of the dissolution prior to issuing notices.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to allow the carried forward TDS credit in the subsequent year, depriving the assessee of the benefit. The Tribunal directed the AO to rectify the order and grant the full TDS credit and refund.

The Tribunal held that the assessments made under Section 153A were not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, it was found that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A without such material.

The Tribunal held that the facts of the current assessment year were identical to those in AY 2011-12 and 2013-14, where the issue was decided in favor of the assessee by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders. It was held that assessments cannot be made on a dissolved entity, especially when the Assessing Officer was aware of the dissolution prior to issuing notices.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders. It was held that assessments cannot be made on a dissolved entity, especially when the Assessing Officer was aware of the dissolution prior to issuing notices.

The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions and the Delhi High Court's affirmation, holding that credit balances in client accounts are not income and that disallowance under Section 14A requires a nexus between expenditure and exempt income, which was not established.

The Tribunal held that the assessments made under Section 153A were not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, it was found that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A without such material.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous. The AO had conducted inquiries, and the Pr. CIT could not substitute his judgment for that of the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the special discounts, finding no error. Regarding interest on PDCs, the Tribunal confirmed that interest was paid for the extension of PDC dates, directing the AO to recompute it.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the special discounts, finding no error. Regarding interest on PDCs, the Tribunal confirmed that interest was paid for the extension of PDC dates, directing the AO to recompute it.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties to whom share capital and premium were issued. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's failure to provide bank statements and produce directors or alleged share subscribers.

The Tribunal held that the commission income should be calculated at a net rate of 0.47% after allowing for expenses, and directed the AO to give effect to this. It also held that a protective addition was not sustainable as the substantive addition was completed in another assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the commission income should be calculated on a net basis after considering expenses, using a rate of 0.47%. It also ruled that the valuation of the property should be based on circle rates and that a protective addition was not sustainable as a substantive addition was already made in another case.

The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment was based on estimation and strange logic without legal basis. It noted that the cash deposit was primarily on account of old currency notes and other deposits were duly accepted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was held to be legally invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessments made under Section 153A were not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, it was found that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A without such material.

The Tribunal held that the commission income should be calculated on a net basis after considering expenses, using a rate of 0.47%. It also ruled that the valuation of the property should be based on circle rates and that a protective addition was not sustainable as a substantive addition was already made in another case.

The Tribunal held that the commission income should be calculated on a net basis after considering expenses, using a rate of 0.47%. It also ruled that the valuation of the property should be based on circle rates and that a protective addition was not sustainable as a substantive addition was already made in another case.

The Tribunal held that the assessments made under Section 153A were not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, it was found that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A without such material.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether advances received for work in progress constitute taxable income needs further examination. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee provides necessary details.

The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are not in the nature of royalty or FTS. The access provided is for copyrighted material rather than the use of copyright itself, and there is no human intervention for technical services.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, dismissed grounds related to the validity of notices and the allocation of income from consolidated financial statements. It also dismissed grounds related to undisclosed loans and advances, and sale of property.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must pass a speaking order. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for services and fall under Section 194C, not Section 194-I which applies to rent for the use of property. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS at 2%.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contribution is not deductible as per Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. However, the disallowance of GST late fee was deleted as it is not an expenditure prohibited by law.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received for accessing the database are not in the nature of royalty or FTS. The receipts are considered business income and are not taxable in India due to the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, dismissed grounds related to the validity of notices and the allocation of income from consolidated financial statements. It also dismissed grounds related to undisclosed loans and advances, and sale of property.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an effective opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and the alleged default under Section 249(4). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, dismissed grounds related to the validity of notices and the allocation of income from consolidated financial statements. It also dismissed grounds related to undisclosed loans and advances, and sale of property.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors and the loan transactions. Relying on a previous decision for an identical group entity with the same lenders and assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the addition and the interest disallowance.

The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide due opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) wrongly denied admission of additional evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting the additional evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte and the grounds raised were not decided by a speaking order. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.

The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground regarding the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities below were correct. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee contributions paid after the statutory due date must be added back to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, violating Section 250(6). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.