ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's claim for exemption as a startup. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for the assessee to present arguments on its startup status and exemption.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer acted with a complete non-application of mind, relying on incorrect information about TDS returns. The DRP also failed to properly consider the facts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that while res judicata doesn't apply, the Revenue's consistent acceptance of rental income as house property income in preceding and subsequent years prevents them from arbitrarily changing the head of income.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal as defective. The tribunal noted that the assessee had been given sufficient opportunities to rectify the defects but failed to do so.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the AO to rebut the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-remittance of TDS was a technical default and did not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not rectify the defects in the appeal and did not appear for any of the hearings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as defective.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. However, liberty was granted to re-institute the appeals if exceptions to the circular were met.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal without proper verification and that the assessee's books were not produced. The Tribunal also referenced a coordinate bench decision regarding website development expenses being treated as intangible assets eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2010-11, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings regarding disallowances and additions. For AY 2015-16, one appeal was dismissed, and another was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition after considering the assessee's past history of cash sales and finding no abnormal trend. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of contrary material from the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the AO to rebut the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the impugned order on these grounds was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the write-off needed to be verified by the AO to determine if it was already accounted for in AY 2011-12. If not, it should be allowed as a capital loss.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and no new information had come to the Assessing Officer's knowledge. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the write-off needed to be verified by the AO to determine if it was already accounted for in AY 2011-12. If not, it should be allowed as a capital loss.

The Tribunal held that since sales were accepted and stock details were not disputed, the entire purchases should not be disallowed. Following judicial precedents, the profit element embedded in such purchases is to be taxed.

The Tribunal held that a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) determines tax residency and entitlement to treaty benefits. Since the Revenue failed to substantiate its allegations of the assessee being a conduit company with cogent evidence, the treaty benefits were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made on an estimate basis without pointing out any specific discrepancy or bogus expenditure. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed submissions and documents. The CIT(Appeals) had incorrectly stated that no submissions were received and had sustained an addition without considering the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. However, liberty was granted to re-institute the appeals if exceptions to the circular were met.

The Tribunal noted that the disputed demand in the appeal has been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of INR 5,13,400/- on account of cash deposits. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of these deposits.

The Tribunal held that while the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. disallows deduction for belated payments, a partial relief was granted for payments made after the due date but before the issuance of the PF/ESI code number, considering the delay was not attributable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the directions of natural justice by not confronting the adverse material to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, stating that the Assessing Officer acted irresponsibly in complying with previous directions.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the principles of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with adverse materials and not providing adequate opportunity to rebut them. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that violation of Section 13 does not lead to denial of exemption for the entire income, but only for the income derived from the violating investment. The deletion of the addition related to denial of exemption was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.

The Tribunal held that the AO correctly exercised powers under section 154 as the intimation under section 143(1) was not merged with the assessment order under section 143(3) when the issues were different. The withdrawal of the appeal against the 143(1) order did not preclude the rectification.

The Tribunal observed that the challan dates indicated payments were made before the due dates. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination and adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.

The Tribunal held that when reassessment proceedings are initiated based on incriminating material found in a third party's search, Section 153C of the Act should be applied, which excludes the application of Sections 147 and 148. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 and the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2010-11, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings regarding disallowances and additions. For AY 2015-16, one appeal was dismissed, and another was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional grounds of appeal which were pure questions of law concerning the jurisdiction of the AO. Such grounds go to the root of the assessment order and should have been entertained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to property valuations when supported by DVO reports and remand reports. Additions on account of cash deposits and business receipts were partly allowed based on available income and savings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was eligible for benefits under Section 10AA. The Tribunal noted that even if some existing plant and machinery were used, their percentage was below the threshold that would disqualify the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the directions of the ITAT regarding natural justice and confronting adverse materials. Given the repeated failures in assessment proceedings and the inability of the Revenue to produce records, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation for the period the plant was not fully operational but accepted that the disallowed amount should be added to the written down value for future depreciation. The Tribunal allowed the plant maintenance expenses as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that the expenses were either properly vouched business expenditures or that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances in prior years was consistently applied. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.