ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors, and did not appear before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. The ground related to Section 14A was also dismissed as it was not raised before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 50C cannot be made under Section 143(1)(a) as it deprives the assessee of their right to object to the valuation and get it referred to the DVO. Such adjustments are unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for delayed payment of employees' PF and ESI contributions is not allowable, as the payment was not made within the statutory due dates. This decision is in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found and this was not rebutted by the Revenue, the assessments were invalid.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely based on a third-party statement without corroborative evidence found during the assessee's search. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly deleted the additions, finding that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely based on a third-party statement without corroborative evidence found during the assessee's search. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly deleted the additions, finding that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely based on a third-party statement without corroborative evidence found during the assessee's search. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly deleted the additions, finding that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely based on a third-party statement without corroborative evidence found during the assessee's search. The Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly deleted the additions, finding that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10,50,500 under Section 68 needed to be decided afresh by the AO after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 14,47,140 was also remitted to the AO for a fresh decision, considering fresh documents filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA could not be levied as no statement under Section 132(4) was recorded during the search, nor was the assessee questioned about the manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The assessee's voluntary surrender and subsequent tax payment were considered.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unsustainable as the assessee had subsequently furnished Form 3CL issued by the competent authority, which was ignored by the first appellate authority. The issuance of Form 3CL is a mandate for claiming deduction under Section 35(2AB).

The Tribunal held that selling and marketing expenses should be charged to revenue as per the ICAI Guidance Note, and expenses on gifts were for business expediency to maintain relationships with land aggregators and brokers.

The Tribunal held that selling and marketing expenses should be charged to revenue as per the ICAI Guidance Note, and expenses on gifts to land aggregators and brokers were for business expediency and commercial purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on vague information and a change of opinion by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO had already examined the transactions during the original assessment, and the reassessment would lead to a double addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging that the company's liquidation and the Official Liquidator's control were reasonable causes. The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving a fair opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging that the company's liquidation and the Official Liquidator's control were reasonable causes. The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving a fair opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The detailed analysis of the share's fundamentals, price movement, trading patterns, and the assessee's lack of knowledge about the scrip supported the AO's conclusion that the transactions were sham.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower tax authorities, concluding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The grounds raised by the assessee were found to be without substance.

The Tribunal held that since the land sold was agricultural land and not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, any income arising from its sale, including alleged 'on-money', would partake the character of exempt income. The Assessing Officer had not controverted the nature of the land.

The Tribunal held that since the land sold was agricultural land and not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, any income arising from its sale, including alleged 'on-money', would partake the character of exempt income. The Assessing Officer had not controverted the nature of the land.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that selling and marketing expenses should be charged to revenue as per the ICAI Guidance Note, and expenses on gifts to land aggregators and brokers were for business expediency and commercial purposes.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the present appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the case was restored to the file of the first appellate authority for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter back to his file. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the application afresh after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI beyond the statutory due date, even if made before the return filing date, is not eligible for deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI beyond the statutory due dates makes the deduction inadmissible. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI beyond the statutory due dates makes the deduction inadmissible. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material found during search are unsustainable. It further noted that the AO's reasoning for disbelieving the parties was irrelevant and that the existence of bank accounts indicated the parties were operational.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found and this was not rebutted by the Revenue, the assessments were invalid.

The Tribunal held that selling and marketing expenses should be charged to revenue as per the ICAI Guidance Note, and expenses on gifts to land aggregators and brokers were for business expediency and commercial purposes.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including assessment orders from related cases and the fact that similar deposits were added in a search assessment. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that excise duty and interest subsidies provided under industrial policies are capital receipts. The nature of the receipt does not change simply because the benefit of weighted deduction was no longer available.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was not issued by the jurisdictional AO, rendering the assessment order invalid. The Tribunal also found that the addition on merits was not justified as the lower authorities had not considered the assessee's submissions regarding cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as the assessee failed to appear and present any evidence to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from the escrow account was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. It reasoned that the investment in permitted securities was incidental to the performance of the concession agreement and a business exigency.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Ground No. 2 (Excessive Cost of Construction): The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) was impressed by the assessee's evidence (valuer's report) but did not consider it due to a procedural issue (no Rule 46A application). Since the CIT(Appeals)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO's and some substance was found in the evidence, the issue was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to submit evidence in accordance with law and obtaining a remand report from the AO. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 2. Ground No. 3 (Low Household Withdrawals): The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(Appeals) erred by considering only the assessee's low withdrawals without considering the family as a unit, the father owning the house, and the wife being an income-earner. The Tribunal found no justification for presuming household expenditure based solely on the assessee's withdrawals. The addition was directed to be deleted. This ground was decided in favour of the assessee. 3. Ground No. 4 (Section 40A(3) Addition): The Tribunal observed that the cash payment of Rs. 2,80,000/- was questionable, especially as it was part of business activity (acquiring plots for construction and sale). The Tribunal found no force in the argument that it couldn't be disallowed as it formed part of the stock. The Tribunal held that such costs should be reflected in the P&L account and justified for business exigency. The Tribunal did not interfere with the findings of the tax authorities below. This ground was decided against the assessee. 4. Ground No. 5 (Unexplained Cash Deposits): The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had not verified the factual information provided by the assessee regarding cash deposits being from prior withdrawals, as evidenced by the cash book. The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s observations regarding the authenticity of the cash book extracts to be unsustainable. The issue was restored to the CIT(Appeals) to verify the fact of deposits being from prior withdrawals and to benefit the assessee accordingly. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided. The operative direction for grounds 2 and 5 was to restore to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263. The assessee was justified in waiting for the finality of the AY 2009-10 appeals before quantifying the refund and interest for AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was not issued by the jurisdictional AO, rendering the assessment order invalid. The Tribunal also found that the addition on merits was not justified as the lower authorities had not considered the assessee's submissions regarding cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IC as Form 10CCB was filed before the intimation order under Section 143(1) and relied on Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions. However, the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI deposit was upheld based on a Supreme Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to implement the DRP's directions and disregarded the mandate of Section 144C(13) of the Act. The AO also exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning the DRP's authority to admit additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach was plausible, and the assessment order could not be labeled as erroneous, even if potentially prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.