ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a due opportunity of hearing without being influenced by the earlier order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not recorded findings on all grounds raised by the assessee and had dismissed the appeal without a proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to those in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2014-15, where the Tribunal had reversed the CIT(A)'s order denying exemption. The Tribunal reasoned that the interest-free deposit of Rs. 5.53 crores was akin to a security deposit and that the allegation of the building going with the land after the lease expiry was a far-fetched thought, as the benefit must enure during the year under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that section 13 allows transactions with specified persons if they are at arm's length and do not directly or indirectly benefit the specified person. In this case, no benefit was passed on to NRPL. The Tribunal distinguished the relied-upon case of Chiranjiv Charitable Trust. Therefore, the denial of exemption under sections 11/12 was uncalled for. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction assumed under Section 153C was bad in law as there was no incriminating seized material found belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be cryptic and non-speaking, lacking sufficient material and detailed examination. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to those in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2014-15, where the Tribunal had reversed the CIT(A)'s order denying exemption. The Tribunal reasoned that the interest-free deposit of Rs. 5.53 crores was akin to a security deposit and that the allegation of the building going with the land after the lease expiry was a far-fetched thought, as the benefit must enure during the year under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that section 13 allows transactions with specified persons if they are at arm's length and do not directly or indirectly benefit the specified person. In this case, no benefit was passed on to NRPL. The Tribunal distinguished the relied-upon case of Chiranjiv Charitable Trust. Therefore, the denial of exemption under sections 11/12 was uncalled for. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer/CPC was not authorized to levy late filing fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was effective from that date.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer/CPC was not authorized to levy late filing fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was effective from that date.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was bad in law as there was no incriminating seized material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO is bound to dispose of objections filed by the assessee against a notice under Section 147 by a speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment. Since the AO failed to do so, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and decide the issues afresh.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee could seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal found it proper to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO is to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing, without being influenced by previous orders.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to those in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2014-15, where the Tribunal had reversed the CIT(A)'s order denying exemption. The Tribunal reasoned that the interest-free deposit of Rs. 5.53 crores was akin to a security deposit and that the allegation of the building going with the land after the lease expiry was a far-fetched thought, as the benefit must enure during the year under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that section 13 allows transactions with specified persons if they are at arm's length and do not directly or indirectly benefit the specified person. In this case, no benefit was passed on to NRPL. The Tribunal distinguished the relied-upon case of Chiranjiv Charitable Trust. Therefore, the denial of exemption under sections 11/12 was uncalled for. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had provided all necessary documents and books of accounts before the first appellate authority. The AO had examined these documents and accepted them, thus no interference was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice by affixture was not in accordance with the law as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The AO failed to demonstrate due diligence in serving the notices, and the procedure for substitute service was not followed correctly.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made under Section 153A for completed assessments. The decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, affirmed by the Supreme Court, was applied.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's dispute resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted. The Departmental Representative could not controvert this fact.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders did not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the information provided for completion under Section 143(3), the penalty for non-compliance with notices was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee, including the transfer of designs and intellectual property rights, made technical knowledge available to the recipient, thus falling under Article 12(4)(b) and (c) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were rightly taxed as FTS.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, the AO cannot make additions under Section 153A for unabated assessments. The Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search operations, the AO cannot make additions under Section 153A for unabated assessments. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue in the Delhi Benches were not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that Section 292BB of the Act, which deals with deemed service of notice, is applicable from AY 2008-09 onwards and not for the present AY 2007-08. Non-service of a notice under Section 143(2) renders the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue in the Delhi Benches were not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search operations, the AO cannot make additions under Section 153A for unabated assessments. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders did not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the information provided for completion under Section 143(3), the penalty for non-compliance with notices was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 73,32,026/- by holding that the expenses were correctly claimed as capital gains and not income from other sources. It also affirmed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,15,70,000/- as only a part payment was verified and the transaction did not culminate.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue in the Delhi Benches were not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the cash sales and corresponding cash deposits were a regular feature of the assessee's business and there was no abnormal trend during the relevant period. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue in the Delhi Benches were not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 153C were unsustainable as the seized documents did not establish a direct correlation with the assessment years in question or the alleged business of the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide credible evidence to establish a fixed place PE in India for the sale of software licenses. Therefore, no income from software license sales could be attributed to a PE.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC as its plant was not situated in a notified area. The pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court did not alter the current non-eligibility.

The Tribunal held that the issue of AMP adjustment was covered in favour of the assessee by previous orders of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court, which had ruled that no adjustment could be made for AMP expenses in the absence of a defined international transaction. The disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee.