ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2023

The CIT(A) correctly allowed interest under Section 244A as the delay in refund was not attributable to the assessee's fault. The assessee had taken prompt steps to rectify the technical error.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. No exceptions were brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs. The Assessing Officer could not provide any exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to make effective representation and furnish fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that the consistent method of stock valuation should be followed and that the capital subsidy was an incentive for industrial development, not for meeting asset costs, thus not requiring reduction from asset cost for depreciation.

The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to first consider the condonation of delay after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, and then adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on bank deposits by a credit co-operative society is inextricably linked to its business activities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). However, the levy of interest under Section 234A was upheld as mandatory.

The Tribunal held that advance rent received by the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should be taxed in the year it accrues or is received, not in the year under consideration if it relates to a subsequent period. The ground regarding contingent liability was not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(2) and Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act were not applicable to the disallowance of customer deposits, following its own precedent. For the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found that inventory write-offs based on actual losses were allowable as business expenditure, also following a prior decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in applying the proviso to Section 50C retrospectively and in not considering the nature of the land at the time of the agreement to sale. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(2) and Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act were not applicable to the disallowance of customer deposits, following its own precedent. For the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found that inventory write-offs based on actual losses were allowable as business expenditure, also following a prior decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's suo motu disallowance by examining the financials. Therefore, the AO could not invoke Rule 8D to enhance the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation due to the delay and the absence of a properly filed application for condonation of delay. The assessee failed to provide sufficient facts and attestation in their condonation application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had already provided benefit to the assessee based on a CBDT circular regarding presumption of certain gold left out of seizure. The Tribunal found no evidence or justification from the assessee to support their claim for the remaining addition.

The Tribunal held that advance rent received by the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should be taxed in the year it accrues or is received, not in the year under consideration if it relates to a subsequent period. The ground regarding contingent liability was not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance was not justified. It allowed the appeal to the extent of the disallowance exceeding Rs. 76,447/-, which was the amount of cash expenses with self-generated vouchers. The AO was also directed to recompute the loss claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) acted hurriedly and did not give a proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee had sought adjournments, and it was not a case of willful non-compliance.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., held that the employees' contribution must be deposited on or before the due date for it to be allowed as a deduction. However, it remanded the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim regarding Sundays causing minor delays.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was a 'damp squib' because the issues raised in the original assessment order, which were the subject of the revision, had already been adjudicated by the ITAT. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings and the consequent assessment order were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that advance rent received by the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should be taxed in the year it accrues or is received, not in the year under consideration if it relates to a subsequent period. The ground regarding contingent liability was not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, as the assessee claimed non-receipt of hearing notices. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It also held that income related to Section 80-IA deduction should not be excluded, directing the AO to recompute the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement. Since the Revenue failed to prove proper service of the notice on the assessee, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that advance rent received by the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should be taxed in the year it accrues or is received, not in the year under consideration if it relates to a subsequent period. The ground regarding contingent liability was not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that advance rent received by the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should be taxed in the year it accrues or is received, not in the year under consideration if it relates to a subsequent period. The ground regarding contingent liability was not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It also held that the income related to the business for which deduction was claimed under Section 80-IA was eligible for such deduction.

The Tribunal held that advance rent received by the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should be taxed in the year it accrues or is received, not in the year under consideration if it relates to a subsequent period. The ground regarding contingent liability was not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should have been given another opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to obtain the valuation of the property from the Valuation Officer, similar to the direction given in the co-ordinate bench's order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reliable valuation for the shares and that the sundry debtors were indeed fictitious, supporting the AO's additions. The Tribunal also found no merit in the ground regarding the expansion of limited scrutiny.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without addressing the grounds on merits, as Section 250(6) of the Act mandates adjudication on points of determination with reasons. The tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in merit-based discussion.

The Tribunal held that the casual labour expenses of Rs. 19,50,000/- and site road construction expenses of Rs. 17,00,000/- were not subject to TDS under Section 194C. The appeal regarding non-deduction of TDS on crane hiring charges was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that advance rent received by the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, should be taxed in the year it accrues or is received, not in the year under consideration if it relates to a subsequent period. The ground regarding contingent liability was not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the notice and order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 were void ab initio because they were issued against a non-existent entity. The Tribunal relied on various case laws supporting this proposition.

The Tribunal held that the agreement for sale of the new property could be construed as an agreement for construction. Therefore, the assessee had a window of three years from the sale of the original asset to complete the construction, and the date of possession was considered completion. The assessee was allowed the exemption.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to power and fuel expenses as the assessee had agreed to the disallowance. For warranty provisions, the Tribunal found the method arbitrary and not based on historical trends or scientific methodology, confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders cannot be sustained if they do not specify which notices were not complied with and if the Assessing Officer did not form an opinion during assessment proceedings justifying the penalty. A 'non-cooperative attitude' alone is not sufficient basis for imposing penalty without specific evidence of non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that if loans/advances were given in the course of business and became irrecoverable, and their genuineness was not doubted, they are allowable deductions. The matter regarding the joint venture advance was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for persons other than the searched person, the six-year period for assessment under Section 153C of the Act commences from the date of the satisfaction note. Therefore, Assessment Year 2008-09 falls outside this period.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note and the seized documents did not have any bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash credits. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the assessee in private limited companies to establish the creditworthiness of shareholders.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to the disallowance of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction, stating the entire exercise by lower authorities was academic. For the closing stock issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for factual verification.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that for persons other than the searched person, the six-year period for assessment under Section 153C of the Act commences from the date of the satisfaction note. Therefore, Assessment Year 2008-09 falls outside this period.

The Tribunal held that if loans/advances were given in the course of business and became irrecoverable, and their genuineness was not doubted, they are allowable deductions. The matter regarding the joint venture advance was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual) for AY 2006-07, finding that an addition based solely on a retracted surrender without corroborative evidence was not sustainable. The appeals for AY 2007-08 were decided based on the findings for AY 2005-06.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders cannot be sustained if they do not specify which notices were not complied with and if the Assessing Officer did not form an opinion during assessment proceedings justifying the penalty. A 'non-cooperative attitude' alone is not sufficient basis for imposing penalty without specific evidence of non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty orders cannot be sustained if they do not specify which notices were not complied with and if the Assessing Officer did not form an opinion during assessment proceedings justifying the penalty. A 'non-cooperative attitude' alone is not sufficient basis for imposing penalty without specific evidence of non-compliance.