ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2023

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 the same income cannot be added twice, once under the Income Tax Act and again under the Black Money Act. Therefore, the deletion of the protective addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the funds were debited from the assessee's bank account on the due date, the delay in crediting to the government's account by the bank should not penalize the assessee. Therefore, the levy of interest was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the funds were debited from the assessee's bank account on the due date, the delay in crediting to the government's account by the bank should not penalize the assessee. Therefore, the levy of interest was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the funds were debited from the assessee's bank account on the due date, the delay in crediting to the government's account by the bank should not penalize the assessee. Therefore, the levy of interest was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained books of account and its sales were accepted, the purchases could not be entirely disallowed. However, as the source of purchases was unverified, only the profit element embedded in the purchases could be added to the income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It noted that the assessee had provided evidence of separate accounts and Form 10CCB, and that directions under Section 144A by the Addl. CIT were binding. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments supporting the deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's humble background, the pandemic, and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that while non-disposal of objections is a procedural irregularity, it does not render the reassessment order void per se, following the Supreme Court's stance. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to deal with the objections and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that while non-disposal of objections is a procedural irregularity, it does not render the reassessment order void per se, following the Supreme Court's stance. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to deal with the objections and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's humble background, the pandemic, and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was annulled in quantum proceedings due to a mechanical approval, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive and therefore deleted the penalty.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the consequential order was favorable and therefore, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal accepted this request.

The Tribunal held that invoking Section 50C for making additions on account of deemed capital gain in an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) is beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a). Such additions are considered controversial and debatable.

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be added twice, once under the Income Tax Act and again under the Black Money Act. Therefore, the deletion of the protective addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

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 affirmed the order of the CIT(A), finding that the disallowances sustained were based on cogent reasoning. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to adhere to the CBDT instructions regarding limited scrutiny assessments. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed on this ground alone.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI beyond the statutory due date results in disallowance of deduction as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. The issue is covered by the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, either of the fixed place or supervisory nature. Consequently, the addition made by attributing a part of the income to the alleged PE was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. which states that employee contributions paid after the due date under relevant Acts are to be added back to income.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(A) after his compulsory retirement was a nullity in law due to a jurisdictional defect. Following previous decisions of coordinate benches and Supreme Court judgments, the appeal was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled by a coordinate bench decision and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Noble & Hewitt. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for examination in light of these decisions.

The Tribunal held that since it was the first year of electronic filing, the assessee's initial failure to file electronically could be due to reasonable ignorance. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the substantive additions were deleted on merits and the assessee was not held to be the correct assessee for those additions, the protective addition also stood deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of employees' contribution towards PF and ESI is squarely covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P Ltd. The disallowance was affirmed.

The Tribunal found it in the interest of substantial justice to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revisionary order, finding that the PCIT had applied his own mind and correctly identified the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT directed a fresh assessment with due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that once borrowings are utilized for business purposes, the interest paid is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), regardless of whether the interest income earned is lower than the interest paid. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision in the assessee's case and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the CIT(A) suffered from a jurisdictional defect as they were passed after his compulsory retirement and were therefore nullities. Consequently, the appeals were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the CIT(A) suffered from a jurisdictional defect as they were passed after his compulsory retirement and were therefore nullities. Consequently, the appeals were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the CIT(A) suffered from a jurisdictional defect as they were passed after his compulsory retirement and were therefore nullities. Consequently, the appeals were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not based on proper application of mind, as evidenced by a common approval for multiple assessees, lack of detail regarding reviewed material, and rapid approval process. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not based on proper application of mind, as evidenced by a common approval for multiple assessees, lack of detail regarding reviewed material, and rapid approval process. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not based on proper application of mind, as evidenced by a common approval for multiple assessees, lack of detail regarding reviewed material, and rapid approval process. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not based on proper application of mind, as evidenced by a common approval for multiple assessees, lack of detail regarding reviewed material, and rapid approval process. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not based on proper application of mind, as evidenced by a common approval for multiple assessees, lack of detail regarding reviewed material, and rapid approval process. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the substantive additions were deleted on merits and the assessee was not held to be the correct assessee for those additions, the protective addition also stood deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the substantive additions were deleted on merits and the assessee was not held to be the correct assessee for those additions, the protective addition also stood deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the payees had already offered the amounts to tax in their respective returns, there was no loss to the exchequer. Therefore, the demand raised under Section 201(1) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-UK DTAA, and therefore, the global operation fee received was not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the evidence for the undisclosed foreign bank account was not admissible and that additions based on notional interest were unsustainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the evidence for the undisclosed foreign bank account was not admissible and that additions based on notional interest were unsustainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the evidence for the undisclosed foreign bank account was not admissible and that additions based on notional interest were unsustainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the evidence for the undisclosed foreign bank account was not admissible and that additions based on notional interest were unsustainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the evidence for the undisclosed foreign bank account was not admissible and that additions based on notional interest were unsustainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the evidence for the undisclosed foreign bank account was not admissible and that additions based on notional interest were unsustainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since there was no transfer of the capital asset, the advance money could not be taxed as capital gains. Instead, Section 51 of the Income Tax Act would apply, allowing the forfeited advance to be deducted from the cost of acquisition upon future transfer.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and cooperate with the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the evidence for the undisclosed foreign bank account was not admissible and that additions based on notional interest were unsustainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.