ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence establishing the identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions. The repayment of loans and payment of interest with TDS were also considered.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's cash sales and existing stock. The addition made by the AO was deemed erroneous and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO invalidly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 as there was no tangible material to form a reasonable belief of escaped income. The reasons recorded by the AO did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI, if not deposited by the due date, is not eligible for deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing before framing a new assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is permissible, even for assessment years prior to 2021-22, citing Supreme Court and ITAT judgments. Adjustments under section 143(1) are also valid for such disallowances.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on agricultural income, stating it was decided in the assessee's favor for a prior year. The addition based on the MOU was deleted as it pertained to a different assessment year and was ultimately cancelled by a court. Additions for commission income were reduced, and additions for unexplained cash and jewellery were deleted as they belonged to family members.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on agricultural income, stating it was decided in the assessee's favor for a prior year. The addition based on the MOU was deleted as it pertained to a different assessment year and was ultimately cancelled by a court. Additions for commission income were reduced, and additions for unexplained cash and jewellery were deleted as they belonged to family members.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds raised. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred in the course of the assessee's professional duties as a partner of the firm. The income received was part of his total professional income, and the expenses were legitimately claimed against it.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a tax resident of Mauritius and possessing a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), is entitled to the benefits of the India-Mauritius DTAA. The PCIT erred in questioning the TRC and concluding that the income was taxable in India.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on agricultural income, stating it was decided in the assessee's favor for a prior year. The addition based on the MOU was deleted as it pertained to a different assessment year and was ultimately cancelled by a court. Additions for commission income were reduced, and additions for unexplained cash and jewellery were deleted as they belonged to family members.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on agricultural income, stating it was decided in the assessee's favor for a prior year. The addition based on the MOU was deleted as it pertained to a different assessment year and was ultimately cancelled by a court. Additions for commission income were reduced, and additions for unexplained cash and jewellery were deleted as they belonged to family members.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid and the assessee's contention regarding the three-year limit for furnishing accounts was misconceived. The additions were sustained due to lack of evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations from creditors, bank statements, and financial statements. The AO failed to bring contrary material to disprove the genuineness of the loan transactions, thus the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations from creditors, bank statements, and financial statements. The AO failed to bring contrary material to disprove the genuineness of the loan transactions, thus the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimated basis do not amount to concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is estimated.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, considering that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte and the assessee sought to admit additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the issue of non-compete fee was debatable and the assessee had consistently contested it, with appeals admitted by the High Court. For other issues, the Tribunal either allowed the appeals for statistical purposes or partly allowed them.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the issue of non-compete fee was debatable and the assessee had consistently contested it, with appeals admitted by the High Court. For other issues, the Tribunal either allowed the appeals for statistical purposes or partly allowed them.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for delay and for the missing document, considering the COVID-19 relaxations. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for delay and for the missing document, considering the COVID-19 relaxations. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revenue erred in treating receipts from international traffic as royalty. It relied on a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench which found the assessee to be a tax resident of Singapore and not to have engaged in back-to-back arrangements.

The Tribunal condoned the four-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the cause beyond the assessee's control. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act does not have retrospective effect, following a consistent approach of co-ordinate benches. The levy of late fee was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act does not have retrospective effect, following a consistent approach of co-ordinate benches. The levy of late fee was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable due to a lack of proper verification and adherence to principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals related to the additions under Section 2(22)(e) were also allowed.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the assessee's failure to furnish supporting details and evidence. The disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution was upheld as per settled law.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, noting the assessee's failure to discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 and the settled position regarding delayed deposit of employee PF contributions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income during the year should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Strategic investments not yielding exempt income were excluded. The addition for disallowed TDS credit was also directed to be factually verified and deleted if it resulted in double addition.

The Tribunal held that belated payment of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC is not deductible. Such disallowances are permissible even under section 143(1) proceedings, following Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that the foreign visits undertaken by the directors were in furtherance of the business of advertising, aimed at augmenting business prospects. Therefore, the expenses should be treated as deductible.

The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition by following the Delhi High Court judgment in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, and the assessee's suo motu disallowance was reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the issue of non-compete fee was debatable and the assessee had consistently contested it, with appeals admitted by the High Court. For other issues, the Tribunal either allowed the appeals for statistical purposes or partly allowed them.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the issue of non-compete fee was debatable and the assessee had consistently contested it, with appeals admitted by the High Court. For other issues, the Tribunal either allowed the appeals for statistical purposes or partly allowed them.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC for delayed payment, citing Supreme Court and coordinate bench judgments. Such belated deposits are considered taxable income, and deduction is not permissible.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to delayed deposit of EPF/ESIC, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, for other grounds concerning delayed deposit of GST and service tax, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to delayed deposit of EPF/ESIC, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, issues concerning delayed deposit of service tax/GST were remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to delayed deposit of EPF/ESIC, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, for other grounds concerning delayed deposit of GST and service tax, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC for late deposit, citing Supreme Court and coordinate bench judgments. Such belated payments are considered taxable income, and deductions are not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's substantial cash withdrawals from another bank account. The stamp duty payment was also considered plausible from the assessee's past savings and declared income sources.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the issue of non-compete fee was debatable and the assessee had consistently contested it, with appeals admitted by the High Court. For other issues, the Tribunal either allowed the appeals for statistical purposes or partly allowed them.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the issue of non-compete fee was debatable and the assessee had consistently contested it, with appeals admitted by the High Court. For other issues, the Tribunal either allowed the appeals for statistical purposes or partly allowed them.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable due to a lack of proper verification and adherence to principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals related to the additions under Section 2(22)(e) were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable due to a lack of proper verification and adherence to principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals related to the additions under Section 2(22)(e) were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimated basis do not amount to concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is estimated.

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimated basis do not amount to concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is estimated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds regarding additional depreciation were to be disallowed, following a previous decision. The Revenue's grounds concerning exploration and development expenditure, time cost expenses, and overhead expenditure were also dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders based on earlier precedents.

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimated basis do not amount to concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is estimated.

The Tribunal held that the delayed payment of employee's contribution to ESI/PF violates Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate vs. CIT, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order.