ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding that the assessee failed to rebut the Pr. CIT's findings regarding errors in the assessment. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the Pr. CIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that once TDS is deducted and paid to the government, credit should be allowed to the assessee, irrespective of whether the income is taxable in that year. The Tribunal followed a previous decision with identical facts.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) as the assessee failed to provide any rebuttal or attend the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the final assessment is made under Section 115JB, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not considered the issues on merits and had confirmed the AO's findings without a rebuttal from the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. The surrendered income was not explicitly linked to the sections covered by Section 115BBE, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to income surrendered before its amendment was debatable. The Assessing Officer's assessment was based on a possible view, and there was no lack of inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a valid reason for restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned, as per judicial precedents. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable as the assessee's explanation fell within the exceptions provided.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on its merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation. A reference made to Swiss authorities for information was deemed invalid for the period in question, thus not extending the limitation period as claimed by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the final assessment is made under Section 115JB, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the four-year limitation period without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment notice was invalid.

The Tribunal found that the gift deed was not disputed by the revenue and the acceptance of the gift was not controverted. In the absence of contrary material, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition was wrongly made in the hands of the assessee as the bank account and deposits pertained to M/s Passion Industries Pvt. Ltd., where the assessee was a director. The Assessing Officer and Joint Commissioner failed to consider the correct facts.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CPC was hyper-technical. Since the income was duly mentioned as exempt in the return and the exemption itself was not disputed by the department, the assessee's claim for exemption could not be denied solely for not being in a specific column.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of double taxation and remitted the issue back to the AO for re-examination. The AO was directed to grant relief to the extent the revenue was already recognized in AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the long-term capital gains from the penny stock, upholding the AO's addition. However, the addition of commission under Section 69C was deleted as the share purchase transaction pertained to a different assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that due procedure was followed. It also confirmed the addition of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases as profit, citing judicial precedents that support taxing only the profit margin in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. The reference made to Swiss authorities for information was considered invalid and did not extend the period of limitation as claimed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reference made to Swiss authorities for information was invalid and did not extend the period of limitation for assessment. Consequently, the assessments were found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reference made by the department to Swiss authorities for information was invalid and did not extend the period of limitation for assessment. Consequently, the assessments were found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de-novo verification of TDS challans, partly allowing the appeal on that ground. For the maintenance expenses, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that education cess is not an allowable deduction as an expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This decision is based on a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that education cess is not an allowable deduction as an expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This decision is based on a Supreme Court judgment.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not properly addressed the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that education cess is not an allowable deduction as expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot determine notional LTCG on the presumed sale of jewellery without any material evidence of such sale. It also held that no addition can be made for unexplained investment when the seized jewellery was part of the disclosed jewellery in the Wealth Tax Return.

The Tribunal held that education cess is not an allowable deduction as an expenditure under Section 37 read with Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This decision is based on a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for the share applicants. The AO had not presented any material to rebut the explanation offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the tax effect of the appeal being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and a letter from the ITO indicating the same.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's instruction to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that the TUF subsidy, aimed at boosting capital investment and improving the textile industry's competitiveness, partakes the character of a capital receipt. This decision aligns with Supreme Court pronouncements on the 'purpose test' for subsidies.

The Tribunal held that the TUFS subsidy, aimed at encouraging capital investment and technological upgradation in the textile industry, partakes the character of a capital receipt. This decision aligns with Supreme Court pronouncements on the 'purpose test' for subsidies.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment was not sustainable as the source of investment was explained by the gift from the co-owner and payments made in foreign currency. The enhancement by the CIT(A) on business expenses was also deleted as it was based on a new source of income not considered by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met. Since the assessee provided an affidavit confirming no tax benefit was derived and no prejudice was caused to the revenue, the revisional order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for the profit difference to Rs. 2,40,000, as the Assessing Officer's remand report accepted reconciliation for the major part. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal agreed that loans carried forward from earlier years and a genuine loan from the husband, supported by evidence, could not be treated as unexplained cash credits for the current year.

The tribunal issued a corrigendum to correct the names of the assessee's counsel and the Departmental Representative on the first page of the appeal order. The original order's disposal remains unchanged, only the representation details are updated.