ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2023

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 affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide any material to rebut the findings of the lower authorities. The source of the share capital was determined to be bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, making the addition under Section 68 valid.

The Tribunal held that the payments made for technical know-how, license fees, and marketing services, calculated as a percentage of net sales, were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure. The assessee did not acquire ownership of any technology or create an enduring asset.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural lapse and should not deny the substantive right to claim FTC. Following its own coordinate benches, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the FTC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held responsible for explaining the bank transactions of an unrelated party (M/s Arjun Traders). The Tribunal found that M/s Arjun Traders was a regular assessee and had provided sufficient documentation, thus the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A could not be invoked as no unexplained money or asset was found during the search. Furthermore, the statement relied upon was found to be unreliable and not pertaining to the assessee, and the transactions were recorded in the books of another company.

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 issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, which ruled against the assessee on the timely deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between employer's and employee's contributions and the conditions for deduction under Section 43B.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A could not be invoked as no unexplained money or asset was found during the search. Furthermore, the statement relied upon was found to be unreliable and not pertaining to the assessee, and the transactions were recorded in the books of another company.

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 approved Resolution Plan under the IBC, which has overriding effect, extinguished all prior claims against the company. Therefore, the appeal and cross-objection would not survive.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid because it was based on factually incorrect premises, specifically that the assessee had not filed a return of income. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was thoroughly negligent, having failed to appear before the lower authorities and the Tribunal despite opportunities. In the absence of any material to rebut the findings of the Assessing Authority, the Tribunal affirmed the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the reasons recorded indicated a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer without any fresh material. Therefore, the reassessment was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271BA. It found that the assessee failed to furnish the required report under Section 92E and did not provide any contrary material to rebut this finding.

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 affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of professional expenses, finding a direct nexus with the sale of shares. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, agreeing that no expenses were incurred to earn exempt income.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the CIT(A) order was passed without considering the remand report and without proper opportunity. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was allowed and the re-assessment order was quashed, the penalty levied could not be sustained. Consequently, the order of the authorities below was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and directed it to decide the appeal afresh on merits. This was done to ensure natural justice and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

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 noted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and the CIT(A) had also upheld the AO's order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions. For the reimbursement issue, the Tribunal found no cogent material beyond the cashier's statement. For the cash balance issue, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the cash could belong to other group entities operating from the same premises.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of being heard. This was done in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the transfer of shares or to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the source of deposits, including evidence of jewellery sales supported by invoices and bank credits. The AO failed to conduct further inquiries to establish suspicion. The CIT(A)'s findings were upheld.

The Tribunal found that the matter required further examination by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's contentions regarding differences in booking patterns and TDS deductions needed to be substantiated with evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in solely relying on the statement under Section 132(4) without appreciating the assessee's explanations. The Tribunal found that components of the alleged undisclosed income were either already assessed in other hands, related to different entities/assessment years, or represented cash in hand belonging to various companies.

The Tribunal held that if the AO does not make an addition on the grounds for which the assessment was reopened, they cannot make additions on other grounds that were not part of the initial reasons. This is in line with judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was bound to follow the ITAT's decision in the case of Brinda Rama Krishna, which held that filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory for allowing foreign tax credit. The CIT(A) could not ignore this precedent without citing a contradictory binding judgment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made a reasonable order. Since the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the loan creditors, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(Appeals). It was held that since the assessee maintained regular, audited books of accounts, which were accepted by the AO without adverse comments or rejection, the cash deposits recorded in these books could not be treated as unexplained credits under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed by an unauthorized officer, rendering it null and void. The fact that the jurisdictional issue was not raised before the AO did not validate an order passed without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that advertisement expenses are incurred for business purposes and goodwill, if created, is a by-product. Disallowing expenditure for brand value creation is erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified, especially since the assessee's husband, in an identical situation for the same property, had his deductions allowed. The Tribunal noted that the computation mechanism fails without the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not applicable as the assessee, being a non-resident, was not obligated to maintain books of account in India, and even if bank statements were considered, the transactions were recorded. On merits, the Tribunal found that the sources of all credit entries were adequately explained.

The Tribunal has decided to correct minor errors in its previously uploaded order. These corrections pertain to the spelling of the assessee's name, the assessment year, and the figures of certain amounts.

The Tribunal decided that the non-compete fee disallowance was against the assessee, following previous rulings. Depreciation on distributors lists was allowed in favour of the assessee, relying on High Court judgments. The issue of processing charges was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. CSR expenses were allowed to the assessee, and the disallowance of ice-box expenses was upheld against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued was an omnibus notice without specifying the exact charge against the assessee. Following precedents from the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty on the grounds of a defective notice.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal decided that the non-compete fee disallowance was against the assessee, following previous rulings. Depreciation on distributors lists was allowed in favour of the assessee, relying on High Court judgments. The issue of processing charges was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. CSR expenses were allowed to the assessee, and the disallowance of ice-box expenses was upheld against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the rental income as income from house property. The arrangement was a license under a BOT project, where the underlying asset belonged to DMRC, and the assessee's activity was a business venture, not ownership of a house property.

The Tribunal decided that the non-compete fee disallowance was against the assessee, following previous rulings. Depreciation on distributors lists was allowed in favour of the assessee, relying on High Court judgments. The issue of processing charges was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. CSR expenses were allowed to the assessee, and the disallowance of ice-box expenses was upheld against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on incorrect assumptions of fact as the assessee had not claimed any losses. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no merit in the addition made on merits, as the assessee had offered actual profits to tax.

The Tribunal held that while the revised return was not entertained by the lower authorities, the claim for loss from house property should be considered in the interest of substantial justice. The issue was remitted back to the AO to consider the revised return and pass an order accordingly.

The Tribunal found that the loan sanction letter from IIFL was placed on record but there was no clear factual finding by the lower authorities. Due to the assessee's absence, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory objective satisfaction required under Section 14A(2) and 14A(3) of the Act read with Rule 8D(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 14A was unsustainable.

The Tribunal decided that the non-compete fee disallowance was against the assessee, following previous rulings. Depreciation on distributors lists was allowed in favour of the assessee, relying on High Court judgments. The issue of processing charges was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. CSR expenses were allowed to the assessee, and the disallowance of ice-box expenses was upheld against the assessee.