ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal held that since the assessee disclosed the entire expenditure in its books and the disallowance was solely on account of a technical violation of Section 40A(3) without disputing the genuineness, it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the 'Sentage' receipts not being income was not acceptable. The receipts were considered taxable income as they were subjected to TDS and the assessee had full control over their utilization.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for physical notices in Form 35, electronic notices issued by the CIT(A) could not be considered as due issuance and service. Therefore, the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the encashed bank guarantees and related interest were not the income of the assessee, as the assessee was merely managing the funds as per government directives. It also allowed the deduction for superannuation benefits and CSR expenses, considering the binding nature of government guidelines on public sector enterprises.

The Tribunal held that selling and administrative costs are to be excluded from contract costs as per Accounting Standard-7. Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions.

The Tribunal held that the revenue was not FTS as it related to 'mining or like projects' and was inextricably connected with prospecting for mineral oils, thus taxable under Section 44BB. It was also held that service tax reimbursement is not includible in gross turnover for computing taxable income under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for physical notices in Form 35, electronic notices issued by the CIT(A) could not be considered as due issuance and service. Therefore, the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the encashed bank guarantees and related interest were not the income of the assessee, as the assessee was merely managing the funds as per government directives. It also allowed the deduction for superannuation benefits and CSR expenses, considering the binding nature of government guidelines on public sector enterprises.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from previous year's balance and bank withdrawals to explain the deposits. The CIT(A)'s basis for upholding a part of the addition was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal request filed by the assessee's representative. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the vehicle was purchased, paid for, and delivered before September 30th, it was available for use and thus entitled to full depreciation for the entire year, irrespective of the later registration date.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal found the CIT's observations and findings reasonable and saw no infirmity in the order passed under Section 263. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable to transactions between a holding company and its subsidiary, as there is no benefit derived by the ultimate beneficiary. Furthermore, Section 68 is not applicable in the assessment year of share issuance if the share application money was received in a prior year.

The Tribunal held that the encashed bank guarantees and related interest were not the income of the assessee, as the assessee was merely managing the funds as per government directives. It also allowed the deduction for superannuation benefits and CSR expenses, considering the binding nature of government guidelines on public sector enterprises.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the DCIT, Circle 3(1), Haridwar, was indeed illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of the jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in PCIT vs. Mohd. Rizwan, which held that where a notice under Section 148 is issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction, the entire reassessment proceedings are void ab initio. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional AO (ITO, Ward 2(2), Muzaffarnagar) had not issued any notice under Section 148. The Tribunal also observed that Section 292BB of the Act, which deals with the curability of defects in notice service, is not applicable to a lack of valid jurisdiction in the issuing authority. The Tribunal concluded that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent, and an assessee cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority that inherently lacks it. Therefore, the reassessment order dated 05.12.2018 was quashed. Other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated as the entire proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the disallowances made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for prior years and found the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be sound.

The Tribunal held that the IT and SAP services were not ancillary and subsidiary to the technical collaboration agreement, and thus did not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-Portugal DTAA. The 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) was also not met.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation. The amendment to Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act, which extended the time limit, was prospective and could not revive a period of limitation that had already expired.

The Tribunal restored the issue of bonus payment to the AO for substantiation and fresh decision. For employee contributions, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance except for a specific amount of Rs. 1,60,325, which was restored to the AO for examination of a potential typographical error.

The Tribunal held that the funds received by the assessee society were held in trust for the Government of India and were to be utilized for public purposes. Interest earned on unutilized funds deposited in FDRs could not be treated as income of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the fees received for centralized services are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-USA DTAA. The centralized service income significantly exceeded royalty income, negating the Revenue's claim of it being ancillary.

The Tribunal held that the IT and SAP services were not ancillary and subsidiary to the technical collaboration agreement, and thus did not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-Portugal DTAA. The 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) was also not met.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the applicability of TDS provisions for travelling and event expenses, nor had the AO provided conclusive findings. For rental income, the CIT(A)'s deletion based on the AO's remand report was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the PCIT, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the PCIT for a fresh decision after providing adequate hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's final assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as it failed to comply with the DRP's directions. The Tribunal emphasized that once a final assessment order is passed, the AO cannot unilaterally modify or substitute it, as this is against the scheme of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment went beyond the scope of limited scrutiny for which the case was selected. The AO's addition was made without proper authority, therefore it was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the entire sale consideration was received through RTGS and post-dated cheques, with no evidence of cash receipt, thus no violation of Section 269SS occurred.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the disallowances as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence like TIN, bank statements, and invoices. The Tribunal also ruled that additions based on DVO's report without rejecting books of account are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are for services rendered for the maintenance of common areas and do not fall under the definition of 'rent' for Section 194I. Therefore, TDS at 2% under Section 194C is applicable.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was on an estimate basis. It is a settled position that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on estimation basis, as the AO must prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the fees received for centralized services are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-USA DTAA. The centralized service income significantly exceeded royalty income, negating the Revenue's claim of it being ancillary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the claimed agricultural income. Reliance on a High Court case was dismissed due to dissimilar facts, as the assessee lacked supporting documentation like a patwari's certificate.

The Tribunal held that the funds received by the assessee society were held in trust for the Government of India and were to be utilized for public purposes. Interest earned on unutilized funds deposited in FDRs could not be treated as income of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press the ground related to PF & ESI due to a Supreme Court decision. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity of being heard and had passed the order in violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are for services rendered for the maintenance of common areas and do not fall under the definition of 'rent' for Section 194I. Therefore, TDS at 2% under Section 194C is applicable.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from amenities, being integral to the property and exploited by the owner, should be assessed as 'income from house property'. The rule of consistency, supported by previous years' treatment, was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on mere conjectures, as the authorities below failed to appreciate the assessee's opening balance and bank statement. The Tribunal deleted the addition as there was an absence of inquiry by the AO and no adverse material against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the difference in revenue was due to a genuine human error in applying the exchange rate and not an attempt to suppress income. The assessee's efforts to rectify the mistake were considered.

The Tribunal held that the fees received for centralized services are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-USA DTAA. The centralized service income significantly exceeded royalty income, negating the Revenue's claim of it being ancillary.

The Tribunal held that the non-response of share applicants to Section 133(6) notices cannot be the sole basis for addition under Section 68. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including investor details, confirmations, bank statements, and financial statements.