ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions had already been deleted in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The ITAT held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions had already been deleted in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeals as the current assessment orders did not make independent additions. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for denovo reassessment. The assessee is to be given a due opportunity of hearing, and the Assessing Officer should not be influenced by previous orders.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's findings were based on erroneous appreciation of facts and wrong contracts. It concluded that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and that the offshore supplies were not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court's ruling, employers must deposit employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date to claim deduction. Late deposits are not allowed as deductions.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This was based on a CBDT order condoning the delay in filing Form 67, allowing the AO to consider the claim on merits.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's findings were based on erroneous appreciation of facts and that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. The payments for offshore supplies were considered business income not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeals as the current assessment orders did not make independent additions. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due inquiry and applied his mind, as evidenced by notices issued and responses received. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unjustified, as it amounted to substituting his view for the AO's.

The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to submit proof of sales tax payment and related orders to the AO within 6 months. The ground related to EPF disallowance was dismissed following a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that claims for deduction under Chapter VI-A, like Section 80JJAA, can be considered even if made after filing the return, especially when based on subsequent favorable judicial pronouncements. The CIT(A) should have examined the additional claim.

The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal by the assessee regarding the same Transfer Pricing Adjustment had been decided in its favour by the ITAT, deleting the adjustment on jurisdictional grounds. Therefore, the current appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not time-barred as the assessee received the intimation order through email on 13.01.2023, and the appeal was filed within 30 days of this receipt. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to provide details of substantive additions in other cases persisted, despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s conclusion was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had observed concealment of income, and the penalty order also concluded concealment. The CIT(A)'s findings were also affirmed as the retracted confession was corroborated by seized documents, thus finding no error in the concealment of income.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions had already been deleted in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's regular cash sales and recovery of trade debts. The assessee maintained proper books of account, and the cash balance as of the demonetization date was adequate to cover the deposit.

The Tribunal held that for deposits made on the next working day after a Sunday due date, the deposit is considered timely. However, the disallowance for other late deposits is sustained. The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC on the disallowed amount needs to be considered by the AO.

The tribunal held that since the time limit for passing the consequential order by the Assessing Officer had expired, the appeal had become infructuous. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if a consequential order was subsequently passed.

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. which held that employee's contribution to EPF/ESI must be deposited on or before the due date for deduction. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the deposit dates.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal acknowledged the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's plea of being handicapped in providing evidence. It found merit in the assessee's submission that they were deprived of an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AD was not applicable due to the assessee's turnover exceeding the prescribed limits. Citing a previous High Court judgment in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's findings were based on erroneous appreciation of facts and wrong contracts. It concluded that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and that the offshore supplies were not taxable in India.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeals as the current assessment orders did not make independent additions. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal held that non-receipt of the notice, even if received by parents, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd., held that the deposit of employee's contribution to ESI & PF must be made on or before the due date for availing deduction. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the technical issue claim.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as there was no conclusive proof of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, and the MAP proceedings were based on assumption. The issue was an interpretational difference, not concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of submitting Form 10B along with the ITR is directive and not mandatory. Considering the assessee had submitted the Audit Report, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be fully verified, only the profit element embedded in them should be taxed. The commission paid to the son was deemed justifiable given the turnover managed by him, and thus allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of hearing by the authorities below. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh reassessment after providing due opportunity.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be fully verified, only the profit element embedded in them should be taxed. The commission paid to the son was deemed justifiable given the turnover managed by him, and thus allowable.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of addition on account of interest on loans and advances was justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The write-off of share application money was also correctly treated as a capital receipt. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been provided a reasonable opportunity to explain its case regarding the treatment of corpus funds. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for unexplained cash credits and unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s restriction of estimated business income, stating that the returned income cannot be reduced.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to comply before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.