ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the moratorium under the IBC, as no proceedings could continue against the corporate debtor. The appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) filing a Miscellaneous Application later.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority used an incorrect email ID for sending notices, leading to non-receipt by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made sufficient inquiries and applied his mind to the issues. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The tribunal held that Persistent Systems Ltd. and Tata Elxsi Ltd. are comparable to the assessee for transfer pricing purposes. However, the issue concerning Comviva Technologies Ltd. was remanded back to the TPO/DRP for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's explanation for cash deposits was unsatisfactory. The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cash sales and deposits, with no defects in books of account or stock, sales, and purchases.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on security deposits is deductible against interest income from banks. It also ruled that maintenance charges received from corporate members are exempt under the principle of mutuality, even if TDS was deducted by the payers.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on security deposits is deductible against interest income from banks. It also ruled that maintenance charges received from corporate members are exempt under the principle of mutuality, even if TDS was deducted by the payers.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on security deposits is deductible against interest income from banks. It also ruled that maintenance charges received from corporate members are exempt under the principle of mutuality, even if TDS was deducted by the payers.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on security deposits is deductible against interest income from banks. It also ruled that maintenance charges received from corporate members are exempt under the principle of mutuality, even if TDS was deducted by the payers.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make submissions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Limited, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the applicability of the amended Section 115BBE provisions was debatable, especially since the survey occurred before the amendment's effective date. The Tribunal also noted that the surrendered income was part of business income, not unexplained cash or stock, and the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. It also noted that the assessment was set aside for de novo consideration, making the penalty infructuous.

The Tribunal held that once substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Atul Tyagi, the same additions could not be made on a protective basis to the assessee. Therefore, the protective additions made to the assessee were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153C lacked incriminating materials. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted, following the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that once substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Atul Tyagi, the same additions could not be made on a protective basis to the assessee. Therefore, the protective additions made to the assessee were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the receipts in dispute were not taxable as FTS. It found that the services rendered fell within the exceptions provided under the India-Portugal DTAA, specifically concerning installation/erection of plants for exploration and exploitation of natural resources, and that the 'make available' condition was not met for certain components.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the amendment to Section 149 by the Finance Act, 2012, which extended the limitation period, could not be applied retrospectively to reopen proceedings concluded before the amendment. The Tribunal also confirmed that income earned by a non-resident from a foreign bank branch is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the revenue earned from background screening services is not 'Royalty' as it does not involve the use of copyright or any other intellectual property. It was also held that the services do not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' as they do not involve making available technical knowledge, experience, or skill.

The Tribunal held that WhatsApp chats alone do not have evidentiary value and that statements of employees cannot be used against the assessee without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The addition was deleted as there was no other corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the receipts in dispute were not taxable as FTS. It found that the services rendered fell within the exceptions provided under the India-Portugal DTAA, specifically concerning installation/erection of plants for exploration and exploitation of natural resources, and that the 'make available' condition was not met for certain components.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had significant cash withdrawals prior to the search, and this cash was available to explain the seized amount. Therefore, no addition under Section 68 should have been made.

The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found against the assessee, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no actual rental income was received by the assessee due to ongoing disputes and litigation. Therefore, notional rental income could not be taxed.

The Tribunal held that the revenue earned from background screening services is not 'Royalty' as it does not involve the use of copyright or any other intellectual property. It was also held that the services do not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' as they do not involve making available technical knowledge, experience, or skill.

The Tribunal held that once substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Atul Tyagi, the same additions could not be made on a protective basis to the assessee. Therefore, the protective additions made to the assessee were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee and the grounds of appeal were not properly signed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in default.

The Tribunal held that once substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Atul Tyagi, the same additions could not be made on a protective basis to the assessee. Therefore, the protective additions made to the assessee were deleted.

The Tribunal held that certain expenses like commission, interest, and business promotion were allowable as per accounting standards. It also found that the CIT(A) erred in not considering additional evidence for repair and maintenance expenses and sundry creditors. The Tribunal restored these issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no actual rental income was received by the assessee due to ongoing disputes and litigation. Therefore, notional rental income could not be taxed.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C are unsustainable in cases of completed or unabated assessments if no incriminating material is found during the search. The additions were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that certain expenses like commission, interest, and business promotion were allowable as per accounting standards. It also found that the CIT(A) erred in not considering additional evidence for repair and maintenance expenses and sundry creditors. The Tribunal restored these issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the cash payments and the genuineness of the long-term capital gains. The PCIT was justified in modifying the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the receipts in dispute were not taxable as FTS. It found that the services rendered fell within the exceptions provided under the India-Portugal DTAA, specifically concerning installation/erection of plants for exploration and exploitation of natural resources, and that the 'make available' condition was not met for certain components.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to two watches, finding they were declared in the Wealth Tax return and exchanged for other declared items. Similarly, jewellery found in a locker was deemed acquired before the relevant assessment period, and foreign currency was found to belong to a third party.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have verified the assessee's claim regarding the source of funds, especially since there was no effective representation before the AO. The case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order, lacking a DIN in its body and not complying with the procedures for manual issuance or regularization, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The appeal was decided on this legal ground without adjudicating on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have verified the assessee's claim regarding the source of funds, especially since there was no effective representation before the AO. The case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for factual verification. The AO is to re-compute the disallowance based on the due date of deposit from the month of actual salary disbursement, as per the Sentinel Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ruling.

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153C lacked incriminating materials. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted, following the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153C lacked incriminating materials. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted, following the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal noted that as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon the issuance of a settlement certificate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for a delay in payment receipt generation caused by technical issues beyond their control, especially when the payment process was initiated before the deadline. Therefore, the addition/disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed orders ex parte. Considering the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the issue of capital gains determination and the valuation as of 01.04.1981. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to amend the grounds of appeal despite being directed to do so. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to amend the grounds of appeal despite being directed to do so. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.