ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits and that the AO had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights, and the sale consideration should be Rs. 75 lakhs. It also ruled that the leasehold land held for over three years is eligible for indexation, resulting in long-term capital gains. The business expenses were allowed as they were incurred to repay business obligations and recover old dues.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in determining the period of existence of the property for capital gains calculation. The MCD plan was sanctioned in 2009 and valid until 2014, indicating the property was held for more than three years.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits and that the AO had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It was held that the provisions of Section 115BBE are applicable to the case as the assessee failed to prove the source of loans.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for cash found with family members was logical. For jewellery, considering the facts and precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits and that the AO had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for cash found with family members was logical. For jewellery, considering the facts and precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits and that the AO had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that interest paid to SIDBI does not attract TDS as per Section 194A(3)(iiib) of the IT Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's action of disallowing interest under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits and that the AO had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to ESI and PF, if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective acts, is not eligible for deduction. This is because such amounts are considered income held in trust and must be deposited on or before the due date as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The AO's remand reports indicated that documentary evidence for the assets and expenses was examined and found satisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The AO's remand reports indicated that documentary evidence for the assets and expenses was examined and found satisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for cash found with family members was logical. For jewellery, considering the facts and precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for cash found with family members was logical. For jewellery, considering the facts and precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits and that the AO had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as the assessee was prevented from filing it due to not being asked by the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits and that the AO had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on incorrect facts and without proper application of mind. Furthermore, the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) before providing the reasons for reassessment, which is a procedural lapse.

The Tribunal held that the receipts, which were commissions from sugar mills for specific developmental activities, were rightly considered by the CIT(A) as not falling under the definition of income. Therefore, the status of the assessee as a local authority was not consequential.

The Tribunal decided the appeal based on the material available on record as the assessee did not appear for the hearing on multiple occasions. The specific decision on the merits of the Section 80P claim is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153C were validly initiated. It further found that the funds of the assessee society were not utilized for charitable purposes, upholding the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed and the Revenue's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be expected to prove cash flow from sales with mathematical precision and that the business was likely able to generate sufficient cash. It found the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance based on mere assumptions to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153C were validly initiated. It further found that the funds of the assessee society were not utilized for charitable purposes, upholding the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed and the Revenue's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce evidence of the issuance and service of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings was quashed as it did not meet the requirements of the law.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of export promotion expenses, agreeing with the lower authorities that the expenditure was not demonstrably for the business of the assessee since the sponsored individual had not joined the company. The assessee failed to justify the claim.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by an individual claiming to be the Financial Controller, but no authorization letter from the assessee company was appended. Following Rule 16 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessment process was completed when the company's operations were closed, leading to no representation. The assessee argued that a reasonable opportunity would have allowed them to explain the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on civil and electrical works, including power evacuation infrastructure, erection, commissioning, line work, and electrical fittings, are integral parts of a windmill and eligible for 80% depreciation. However, depreciation on land was not allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee in an individual capacity, while the assessment was framed in the capacity of a legal heir. This discrepancy rendered the entire reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the seized document lacked evidentiary value as it was unsigned, undated, and unverified. Furthermore, the assessee's affidavit and a subsequent letter confirmed no payments were made as per the document, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

The Tribunal held that the excess claim of depreciation was an inadvertent human error and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Since the assessee itself brought the mistake to notice and no tax benefit was derived, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be expected to prove cash flow from sales with mathematical precision and that the business was likely able to generate sufficient cash. It found the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance based on mere assumptions to be unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the facts correctly, particularly regarding the cash deposit which was allegedly a cheque clearing. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) relied on observations from a different assessment year without considering the distinct factual matrix.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of export promotion expenses, agreeing with the lower authorities that the expenditure was not demonstrably for the business of the assessee since the sponsored individual had not joined the company. The assessee failed to justify the claim.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications due to non-compliance but did not ascertain if the notices issued were actually served on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving inadequate rent charged for the property. Relying on a previous High Court judgment involving the same assessee, the Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications due to non-compliance but did not ascertain if the notices issued were actually served on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because it did not bear the DIN on its body, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The simultaneous generation and communication of a DIN number were considered insignificant if not quoted on the assessment order itself.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of export promotion expenses, agreeing with the lower authorities that the expenditure was not demonstrably for the business of the assessee since the sponsored individual had not joined the company. The assessee failed to justify the claim.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not find that the items were not jewellery, and considering the assessee's high social status and declared jewellery worth over Rs. 6.27 crores, directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) is empowered to make inquiries but must provide an adequate opportunity of hearing. To uphold natural justice, the impugned order was set aside and the application was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal emphasized that a mere difference of opinion or a desire for a fuller inquiry does not make an assessment order erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the impugned additions.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on civil and electrical works, including power evacuation infrastructure, erection, commissioning, line work, and electrical fittings, are integral parts of a windmill and eligible for 80% depreciation. However, depreciation on land was not allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of export promotion expenses, agreeing with the lower authorities that the expenditure was not demonstrably for the business of the assessee since the sponsored individual had not joined the company. The assessee failed to justify the claim.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) inadvertently omitted to mention the deleted adjustments. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit for the balance amount was not justified. It directed the AO to allow the credit of the remaining TDS amount after verification.

The Tribunal found that there was no effective representation from the assessee before the lower authorities. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.