ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that deposits made on the next working day after a Sunday due date for ESI/PF are allowable. However, regarding the addition of the firm's loss, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of findings by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order in a related case had deleted similar additions when shares were sold at a higher price in a subsequent year. Considering this and that the case law was not presented before the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA is not leviable if the Assessing Officer does not specifically question the assessee about the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the statement recording under Section 132(4). Since this was not done, the assessee is entitled to immunity from penalty.

The tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the income-tax portal does not constitute effective service. The ex parte order passed by the CIT(Exemption) was not sustainable in law due to violation of principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had allowed the admission of additional evidence and found that the increase in short-term borrowings was due to reclassification, and the increase in other current liabilities was explained by VAT payable, TDS payable, and advances.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, citing the assessee's reasons for non-compliance and the AO's failure to examine the evidence. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, citing the assessee's reasons for non-compliance and the AO's failure to examine the evidence. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was caught in a legal and administrative quagmire and that the delay was not solely attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the assessee's grievances and had merely copied the grounds of appeal. Such a cryptic order lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal in a similar case involving insolvency proceedings. The Revenue did not dispute this fact.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus under Section 68 as the investor company was the holding company and the transaction was through banking channels. The AO failed to prove otherwise despite opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus under Section 68 as the investor company was the holding company and the transaction was through banking channels. The AO failed to prove otherwise despite opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was aware of his liability to disclose globally earned income. The contention that rent would be disclosed upon transfer to India was not accepted, and the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in discrediting the assessee's valuation reports for construction without proper recourse. However, the addition of Rs. 15,03,000/- was upheld due to lack of evidence beyond self-serving affidavits for the source of investment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus under Section 68 as the investor company was the holding company and the transaction was through banking channels. The AO failed to prove otherwise despite opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct any independent inquiry or examine the AIR information to establish the reliability of the Rs. 37.88 crores transactions. Consequently, there was no tangible material to form the 'reasons to believe' that income had escaped assessment, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because 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 held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because 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 held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following various High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law 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 obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law 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 obliterated.

The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after considering the Supreme Court's decision on the service of notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because 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 held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus under Section 68 as the investor company was the holding company and the transaction was through banking channels. The AO failed to prove otherwise despite opportunities.

The assessee requested to withdraw all six appeals. The Tribunal noted that similar issues for a different assessment year were decided against the assessee by a co-ordinate bench.

The assessee requested to withdraw all six appeals. The Tribunal noted that similar issues for a different assessment year were decided against the assessee by a co-ordinate bench.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits to the extent of gross receipts declared under Section 44AD cannot be added as unexplained income, as Section 44AD does not require maintenance of books of account. However, the difference between gross receipts and bank deposits can be treated as income by applying the applicable profit rate.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits to the extent of gross receipts declared under Section 44AD cannot be added as unexplained income, as Section 44AD does not require maintenance of books of account. However, the difference between gross receipts and bank deposits can be treated as income by applying the applicable profit rate.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits to the extent of gross receipts declared under Section 44AD cannot be added as unexplained income, as Section 44AD does not require maintenance of books of account. However, the difference between gross receipts and bank deposits can be treated as income by applying the applicable profit rate.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits to the extent of gross receipts declared under Section 44AD cannot be added as unexplained income, as Section 44AD does not require maintenance of books of account. However, the difference between gross receipts and bank deposits can be treated as income by applying the applicable profit rate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documentary evidence, and no incriminating material was found during the search to support the AO's allegations.

The Tribunal held that the gain from the sale of tangible assets is taxable only in the country of residence of the alienator as per Article 13(6) of the India-Mexico DTAA, provided there is no PE in India. Since the assessee had no PE and the gain did not fall under other paragraphs of Article 13, it was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal found it essential in the interest of justice to consider the additional evidence. Both parties agreed to a remand, and the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A in cases of unabated assessments can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority failed to consider the peculiar facts and decided the appeal without issuing postal notices. The ends of justice require giving the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of software license costs on a cost-to-cost basis is not taxable as royalty. It further noted that the assessee, not owning the IPR of the software, was selling copyrighted articles, not the right to use copyright.

The Tribunal held that the delay in depositing employees' contributions to EPF & ESI is not allowable as a deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Check Mate Services Private Limited.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in accepting the DVO's report without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the DVO and without considering the assessee's objections. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 200A, making the levy of fees under Section 234E applicable, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Since the assessment year is 2016-17, the AO can levy fees only for the second and third quarters, not the first. The matter was restored to the AO to decide afresh.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10IC is only required in the first year of opting for Section 115BAA, not for subsequent years. The denial of the benefit based on not filing a fresh form was deemed irrational.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition. It found that the document relied upon by the AO was an unsigned photocopy and that the AO wrongly placed the burden of proof on the assessee to disprove the cash transaction.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal, stating that the AO erred in accepting the DVO's report without allowing cross-examination or considering the assessee's objections. The additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income due to the DDO's error. The authorities below did not properly consider this submission, and the default was bona fide.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned and the assessee's own funds exceed investments. It also found that disbelieving sundry creditors of prominent companies without specific defects in accounts was unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Infosys Ltd. as a comparable, citing previous decisions in the assessee's own cases and the department's own subsequent exclusion of Infosys Ltd. as a comparable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not tenable as it was unclear whether it was made under Section 68 or as a disallowance of exemption under Section 10(38). The Tribunal noted that the conditions for Section 10(38) were met and the AO did not provide evidence to disprove the transaction's genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not tenable as it was unclear whether it was made under Section 68 or as a disallowance of exemption under Section 10(38). The Tribunal noted that the conditions for Section 10(38) were met and the AO did not provide evidence to disprove the transaction's genuineness.

The Tribunal, considering the lack of clarity and the need for factual verification, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee will have the opportunity to present evidence and explanations for the disputed deductions.

The Tribunal held that the change in flat number, confirmed by the builder in 2008, should be considered the date of acquisition, making the asset a long-term capital asset. Consequently, the assessee's claim for long-term capital loss was restored.