ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2023

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 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 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 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 held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition under Section 68 as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of loan genuineness. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the AO for further verification of own funds for investments.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 assessment proceedings under Section 153C are only sustainable if the seized documents have a bearing on the determination of the total income for the relevant assessment year. Since the seized documents did not correlate with the assessment year in question, the assessment order was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO had no bearing on the alleged incriminating material that triggered the assessment proceedings under Section 153C. The assessment order framed under Section 153C was quashed as it lacked a connection to incriminating materials found during the search.

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 the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were not justified in sustaining the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. It was noted that the assessee had not incurred any direct or indirect expenditure to earn the exempt dividend income, and no contradictory material was brought on record by the revenue.

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.

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 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 CIT(E)'s decision, finding no error in rejecting the Section 80G approval. The Tribunal agreed that the construction was to be financed by MPLADS and undertaken by the Haryana Government, making it unnecessary for the society to collect funds for this purpose.

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 the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition.

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 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 since no notice under Section 143(2) was served, the assessment was unabated. In an unabated assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was referenced for the additions, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned 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 the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

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 the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer primarily relied on a retracted statement and did not find any specific incriminating material during the search. Subsequent findings by CESTAT, which accepted the genuineness of purchases and manufacturing activities, were fatal to the Revenue's case.

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.

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 Section 12AA pertains to the registration of a trust and not to assessing its actual activities. The Commissioner is to be satisfied about the charitable nature of the objects and the genuineness of proposed activities, not past actions.