ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for factual verification. The AO is to re-compute the disallowance based on the due date of deposit from the close of the month of actual salary disbursement, as per a co-ordinate bench ruling.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, stating that the ends of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their submissions.

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their submissions. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est due to the absence of DIN and incomplete uploading on the ITBA portal, which violated principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est due to the absence of DIN and incomplete uploading on the ITBA portal, which violated principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that additions based on material seized from a third party in a Section 153A assessment are not permissible without corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee. Regarding 'dabba' transactions, the addition was sustained only to the extent of cash identified as belonging to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions based on material seized from a third party in a Section 153A assessment are not permissible without corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee. Regarding 'dabba' transactions, the addition was sustained only to the extent of cash identified as belonging to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions based on material seized from a third party in a Section 153A assessment are not permissible without corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee. Regarding 'dabba' transactions, the addition was sustained only to the extent of cash identified as belonging to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order under a wrong impression. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that waiver of a loan does not amount to cessation of a trading liability. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra and Mahindra, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions based on material seized from a third party in a Section 153A assessment are not permissible without corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee. Regarding 'dabba' transactions, the addition was sustained only to the extent of cash identified as belonging to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings of fact regarding the sham nature of the share transactions were not controverted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that additions based on material seized from a third party in a Section 153A assessment are not permissible without corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee. Regarding 'dabba' transactions, the addition was sustained only to the extent of cash identified as belonging to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration. The orders of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeals were filed twice by inadvertence and requested to withdraw them. The Tribunal accepted this submission and dismissed the appeals.

The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeals were filed twice by inadvertence and requested to withdraw them. The Tribunal accepted this submission and dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC ought to have decided the appeal on merits and restored the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that payments received for cloud computing services do not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services under the India-USA DTAA. The services provided are standardized and automated, and do not 'make available' technical knowledge to the customer.

The Tribunal held that payments received for cloud computing services do not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services under the India-USA DTAA. The services provided are standardized and automated, and do not 'make available' technical knowledge to the customer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration. The orders of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was not sustainable because the assessee had neither shown any interest income nor claimed any TDS on it in its return. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was not faulted, but the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the reimbursements were taxable as FTS, following a coordinate bench decision. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the taxability of reimbursements as FTS. The appeals were partly allowed on other grounds.

The Tribunal restored the issue of penalty to the CIT(A) for decision on merits, following a previous order that sent the quantum addition back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the penalty after adjudicating the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions convincing, noting that expenditure not claimed initially cannot be disallowed. It also observed that the denial of an opportunity to the assessee before making the adjustment violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not validly empowered to rectify a mistake in an order issued by his superior officer, the Principal CIT. Therefore, the rectification order passed by the AO under Section 154 was considered without jurisdiction, invalid, and bad in law.