ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that aggregating the manufacturing/assembly segment with the distribution segment was incorrect. It also allowed the appeal regarding the imputation of interest on outstanding receivables, following its own prior decision and other judicial precedents.

The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had already quashed the Section 263 order. Since the basis for the assessment was removed, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to interest and general expenses by following its own co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13. However, for the delayed payment of employees' contribution, the Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, confirmed the disallowance made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by the four Jammu-based entities were previously held as genuine by CESTAT and the ITAT, the corresponding sales to the assessee must also be considered genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in relying on the retracted statement of Shri Brijesh Bhagat as the sole basis for the addition. The assessee had discharged its onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) cannot be allowed for profits derived from housing projects consisting of unbuilt housing sites.

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) cannot be allowed for profits derived from housing projects consisting of unbuilt housing sites.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by the four Jammu-based entities were previously held as genuine by CESTAT and the ITAT, the corresponding sales to the assessee must also be considered genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by the four Jammu-based entities were previously held as genuine by CESTAT and the ITAT, the corresponding sales to the assessee must also be considered genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by the four Jammu-based entities were previously held as genuine by CESTAT and the ITAT, the corresponding sales to the assessee must also be considered genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by the four Jammu-based entities were previously held as genuine by CESTAT and the ITAT, the corresponding sales to the assessee must also be considered genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by the four Jammu-based entities were previously held as genuine by CESTAT and the ITAT, the corresponding sales to the assessee must also be considered genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by the four Jammu-based entities were previously held as genuine by CESTAT and the ITAT, the corresponding sales to the assessee must also be considered genuine. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below passed a reasonable order. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions, and the additions made were upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the interest was not penal in nature but compensatory due to delayed lease payments as per the agreement. It was correctly capitalized as part of project expenses.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, without properly bringing the legal heir on record, is null and void.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to file their submissions.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that employers must deposit employees' contributions towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date to avail deduction. Belated deposits are not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal noted conflicting Supreme Court judgments regarding the eligibility for deduction on substantial expansion. Considering the latest Supreme Court ruling that overturned the 'Classic Binding Industries' case, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the investments were made from non-interest bearing funds and no expenditure was incurred for making these investments, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the preceding assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the larger addition on account of low profit was deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty related to that addition was not sustainable. However, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the penalty on the remaining addition.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that employers must deposit employees' contributions towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date to avail deduction. Belated deposits are not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's appeals could not be pursued due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them later.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on evidence not available to the AO and that the assessee did not appear to provide supporting documentation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of additional evidence.

The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to link the cash deposits in India with withdrawals from the US bank account. The assessee also failed to appear for multiple hearings.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the penalty appeal before the quantum appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the quantum appeal first, and then the penalty appeal.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that a one-day delay in depositing employee contributions to ESIC and EPF, where the due date fell on a Sunday or gazetted holiday, should be condoned as per Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. The assessee's bona fide intention to deposit was evident from the immediate next-day deposit.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption that the assessee knew about demonetization in advance and made withdrawals accordingly was illogical and baseless. Since the cash withdrawals were reflected in the books of account, which were not rejected, additions could not be made on surmises and conjectures.

The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that employers must deposit employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date to avail deduction. Failure to do so means the amount is deemed income and not deductible.

The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that employers must deposit employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date to avail deduction. Failure to do so means the amount is deemed income and not deductible.

The Tribunal held that the existence of a business is sufficient for the allowability of expenses, even if no income is generated in a particular year. A temporary lull in business does not mean the business has ceased to exist.

The Tribunal held that the payments received for architectural design services were not FTS as the services did not enable the client to apply the technology. Furthermore, the payments were not royalty as the ownership of the developed designs vested with the client, constituting a rendition of services.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, held that the assessee's appeals could not be pursued due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them later.

Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The tribunal remanded the case for the limited purpose of reconciliation and computation under Section 115JB, considering Form 29B.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 271F were not attracted to the assessee's case. The penalty levied was therefore obliterated.

The Tribunal held that if the AO accepted the assessee's involvement in accommodation entries, the addition should have been on account of commission income, as done in prior years. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 0.5% of the total investments/advances.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders passed against a deceased person are null and void. It also found that the vague penalty notices, failing to specify the exact charge, were invalid as they did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to grant immunity from penalty under Section 270AA. The assessee failed to file a proper application for immunity before the AO. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the case involved misreporting of income due to maintaining dual books and out-of-books sales, justifying the penalty under Section 270A(9).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must pass a speaking order on merits. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.