ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal held that the seized documents were unreliable 'dumb documents' and the statement of Shri R.K. Miglani could not be relied upon. Consequently, additions made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure were directed to be deleted. Regarding a loan waiver issue, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra, holding that no addition could be made under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue should be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The reduced transfer pricing adjustment resulted in a penalty amount below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for appeals.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents were unreliable 'dumb documents' and the statement of Shri R.K. Miglani could not be relied upon. Consequently, additions made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure were directed to be deleted. Regarding a loan waiver issue, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra, holding that no addition could be made under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine as the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence and the AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's reliance on old search reports was not justified.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, no CG or SBLC was intended or given before March 31, 2011, thus no international transaction occurred. For AY 2012-13, the entities were not AEs until their acquisition in AY 2013-14. Regarding outstanding receivables, the matter was remanded for recomputation of interest.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's name appeared as an account holder, which was considered incriminating. However, since the assessee agreed to sign a consent waiver form to clarify its position, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's name appeared as an account holder, which was considered incriminating. However, since the assessee agreed to sign a consent waiver form to clarify its position, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that jewellery found within the permissible limits as per CBDT circular for family members should not be treated as unexplained, following various High Court and Tribunal judgments. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the interest expenses were capitalized and not debited to the profit and loss account, they could not be disallowed under Section 14A. Furthermore, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents were unreliable 'dumb documents' and the statement of Shri R.K. Miglani could not be relied upon. Consequently, additions made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure were directed to be deleted. Regarding a loan waiver issue, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra, holding that no addition could be made under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the business expenditure disallowance, noting the AO did not dispute the genuineness of expenses and had made ad-hoc disallowances without specific evidence. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance, finding it justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in treating the application as a fresh one and not considering the existing registration. It was also noted that the CIT(E) had difficulty ascertaining if the old and new entities were the same.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were confirmed by higher authorities, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was unjustified. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on the right to operate a toll road as an intangible asset, following a Special Bench decision. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow provisions for warranty period expenses, stating it's a contractual liability and should be booked on the matching principle.

The Tribunal held that Sales Tax subsidy is a capital receipt and should not be reduced from the written down value of assets for depreciation purposes, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions and depreciation on computer accessories.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine as the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence and the AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's reliance on old search reports was not justified.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income. Regarding staff welfare expenses, the Tribunal directed deletion of the addition, finding the AO's ad-hoc disallowance unjustified. The appeals were decided based on these findings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) should be deleted as the tax dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The AO was directed to delete the penalty, with liberty to the Revenue to approach if Form No. 5 pertains to a different assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the additional salary payments were duly supported by evidence of work done and paid through cheques, and the AO's assumption of it being for the entire year was erroneous. The expenses in the diary were also found to be personal to an individual and not of the assessee society.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, no CG or SBLC was intended or given before March 31, 2011, thus no international transaction occurred. For AY 2012-13, the entities were not AEs until their acquisition in AY 2013-14. Regarding outstanding receivables, the matter was remanded for recomputation of interest.

The Tribunal held that since the interest expenses were capitalized and not debited to the profit and loss account, they could not be disallowed under Section 14A. Furthermore, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal upheld the additions for commission income and interest income, finding no evidence of business activity. However, it allowed telescoping of the returned income against the confirmed additions.

The Tribunal held that Sales Tax subsidy is a capital receipt and should not be reduced from the written down value of assets for depreciation purposes, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions and depreciation on computer accessories.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred by relying on the old MOA and by considering the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) as a ground for rejection. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the entire search assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the entire search assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of infrastructure development expenses and legal expenses, finding them to be revenue in nature. The ad-hoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was set aside entirely in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the entire search assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee not receiving the physical copy of the revision order and the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was restored to the file of the PCIT for a fresh assessment after giving the assessee an effective opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, confirming the deletion. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses to 0.5% due to the assessee's failure to provide details.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, confirming the deletion. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses to 0.5% due to the assessee's failure to provide details.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income. Regarding staff welfare expenses, the Tribunal directed deletion of the addition, finding the AO's ad-hoc disallowance unjustified. The appeals were decided based on these findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the land sold was indeed agricultural land and its sale proceeds were exempt. Similarly, the sale of shares held for a long period was correctly treated as capital gains, not business income.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the entire search assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to provide specific reasons for non-compliance. If the reasons are found plausible and bonafide, the penalty should be deleted.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, confirming the deletion. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses to 0.5% due to the assessee's failure to provide details.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the directors whose statements were recorded by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the AO deserves an opportunity to rebut these statements.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the directors whose statements were recorded by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the AO deserves an opportunity to rebut these statements.

The Tribunal held that Sales Tax subsidy is a capital receipt and should not be reduced from the written down value of assets for depreciation purposes, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions and depreciation on computer accessories.

The Tribunal held that since the assessments were non-abated and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under section 153A were bad in law. The jurisdiction was exercised without any incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that since the assessments were non-abated and no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under section 153A were bad in law. The jurisdiction was exercised without any incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that Sales Tax subsidy is a capital receipt and should not be reduced from the written down value of assets for depreciation purposes, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances related to Section 10B deductions and depreciation on computer accessories.

The tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) was vitiated due to the lack of opportunity given to the assessee. The intimation was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the cash sales were not verifiable due to lack of buyer details, but this was a consistent practice and not a requirement for sales below Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal also found that the differences in sundry creditors' balances were either opening balance differences, amounts where the assessee's books showed lower liability, or rectifiable accounting errors.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of infrastructure development expenses and legal expenses, finding them to be revenue in nature. The ad-hoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was set aside entirely in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if deposited after the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. It agreed that the reopening was based on factual errors and therefore vitiated the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and making an addition based on ambiguous findings. The issue was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions for identical issues in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the gains were attributable to contract work and supported by documentary evidence.