ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the licence fee was revenue expenditure and that the addition on account of unexplained creditors was not justified as the liabilities had not ceased to exist.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the foundation for the penalties, was annulled, the penalties must also fall. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the foundation for the penalties, was annulled, the penalties must also fall. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned penalties.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for charitable activities should be allowed to be set off against the corresponding receipts, even if registration under Section 12A was not available for the assessment year in question. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of expenses and depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was void ab initio as no incriminating material was found during the search that pertained to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

The tribunal noted that the dispute had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was deemed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 263, especially when no penalty order was passed by the Assessing Officer and the time limit had expired. The initiation of revisionary proceedings was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting the requested adjournment and violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's failure to comply with notices and explain the delay in filing the appeal was noted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty orders were unenforceable in law.

The ITAT noted that the NCLT had passed an order approving a resolution plan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

The ITAT noted that the NCLT had passed an order approving a resolution plan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back for a decision on merits. This was done to ensure natural justice and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT noted that the NCLT had passed an order approving a resolution plan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction regarding the nature of the default was vague and not specific, failing to meet the requirements of Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1B) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty notice also lacked specificity.

The ITAT noted that the NCLT had passed an order approving a resolution plan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

The ITAT noted that the NCLT had passed an order approving a resolution plan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that employee remuneration, salary, legal expenses, board meeting expenses, and director sitting fees cannot be directly attributed to the interest earned from fixed deposits. Therefore, these expenses do not meet the criteria of being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning such income.

The ITAT noted that the NCLT had passed an order approving a resolution plan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the government notifications as additional evidence, as they were in the public domain and relevant to the issue. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to mention the specific bank account where the deposits were made and did not provide material to support treating the deposits as turnover. The CIT(Appeals) also dismissed the appeal casually without verifying the assessee's claim of being a dependent housewife.

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

The Tribunal held that the order of the Pr. CIT cancelling the registration was legally invalid. Consequently, the reassessments made denying exemption based on the cancelled registration were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Pr. CIT cancelling the registration was legally invalid. Consequently, the reassessments made denying exemption based on the cancelled registration were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Pr. CIT cancelling the registration was legally invalid. Consequently, the reassessments made denying exemption based on the cancelled registration were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Pr. CIT cancelling the registration was legally invalid. Consequently, the reassessments made denying exemption based on the cancelled registration were set aside.

The ITAT noted that the NCLT had passed an order approving a resolution plan. Consequently, the Tribunal found no useful purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Pr. CIT cancelling the registration was legally invalid. Consequently, the reassessments made denying exemption based on the cancelled registration were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the failure to serve a valid statutory notice under Section 148 to the correct address. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was also not supported by tangible material.

The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal found that the notices were not duly served at the assessee's present address and he had no other information to appear. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. Regarding cash seized, it was found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the revenue authorities to ascertain the veracity of the assessee's claim of advance bookings.

The Tribunal held that Section 189 of the Income Tax Act keeps the firm alive for assessment purposes even after dissolution. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that since no return was filed, the assessment year was unabated, granting the AO jurisdiction to assess the entire income.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of alleged unaccounted interest payments were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. Regarding cash seized, the Tribunal noted insufficient inquiry by the Assessing Officer and deleted additions made on account of advance booking.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. It also found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding cash received on advance booking of plots, leading to deletion of such additions.

The Tribunal decided that the provision for maintenance was an allowable expenditure, and foreign income not taxable as per DTAA should not be taxed under Section 115JB. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to some extent.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was illegal and bad in law because it should have been framed under section 153C. The AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 153C, rendering the assessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. It also found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding cash received on advance booking of plots, leading to deletion of such additions.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. It also found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding cash received on advance booking of plots, leading to deletion of such additions.

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

The Tribunal held that additions on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. Regarding cash seized, it was found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the revenue authorities to ascertain the veracity of the assessee's claim of advance bookings.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. It also found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding cash received on advance booking of plots, leading to deletion of such additions.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. Regarding cash seized on advance booking of plots, the Tribunal found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the authorities, and the assessee's explanation was not adequately disproved.

The Tribunal decided that the provision for maintenance was an allowable expenditure, and foreign income not taxable as per DTAA should not be taxed under Section 115JB. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to some extent.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. It also found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding cash received on advance booking of plots, leading to deletion of such additions.

The Tribunal held that additions made on account of interest paid were liable to be deleted due to lack of proof. It also found that proper inquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer regarding cash received on advance booking of plots, leading to deletion of such additions.

The Tribunal held that the additional income tax payable by a domestic company under Section 115-O on dividends distributed to non-resident shareholders is at the rate prescribed in Section 115-O, not the DTAA rate, unless the DTAA specifically extends such protection.

The Tribunal held that the additional income tax payable by a domestic company under Section 115-O on dividends distributed to non-resident shareholders is at the rate prescribed in Section 115-O, not the DTAA rate, unless the DTAA specifically extends such protection.