ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.

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 Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and plausibly accepted the assessee's explanation for the non-taxability of capital gains. Therefore, the revisional order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was bad in law.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 since no incriminating material was found regarding the applicability of section 2(22)(e), the ratio of Kabul Chawla squarely applies. When multiple views are possible, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is unwarranted if the AO followed a plausible view.

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 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 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 since no incriminating material was found regarding the applicability of section 2(22)(e), the ratio of Kabul Chawla squarely applies. When multiple views are possible, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is unwarranted if the AO followed a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found regarding the applicability of section 2(22)(e), the ratio of Kabul Chawla squarely applies. When multiple views are possible, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is unwarranted if the AO followed a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found regarding the applicability of section 2(22)(e), the ratio of Kabul Chawla squarely applies. When multiple views are possible, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 is unwarranted if the AO followed a plausible view.

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 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 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, 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 claim could not be disbelieved without further investigation.

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 noted that the first appellate authority had not decided the appeal on merits, anticipating a settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act which ultimately failed. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the first appellate authority for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the income added by the AO was indeed part of the disclosure made before the Settlement Commission. No contrary material was presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of expenses was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient documentation. It also held that the disallowance of salary payments to expatriates, which were pure cost-to-cost reimbursements, was not warranted as they did not constitute income and thus no withholding tax was required.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence showing payees offered income to tax, but since this was not presented to lower authorities, the issue was restored to the AO for factual verification. The AO must verify if the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) applies.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for earning interest income is allowable under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It also held that the business continued in the shed, and the business loss was allowable, especially given the AO's partial acceptance in a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for earning interest income is allowable under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It also held that the business continued in the shed, and the business loss was allowable, especially given the AO's partial acceptance in a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for NPA provision, finding that the assessee did not make any new provision in the current year and a reversal of a prior year's provision was correctly credited to the P&L account. The Tribunal also noted that a coordinate bench had decided a similar issue in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs as unexplained cash, concurring with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support his claims. Penalty proceedings were deemed premature.

The Tribunal held that the license fee paid for the use of goodwill was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on similar matters for the assessee.

The tribunal held that only real income is taxable and there is no provision to tax notional interest income. Since the borrowed funds were used for business purposes, the interest paid was allowable as a deduction.