ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT (Exemption) to consider the application on its merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on erroneous facts, as the loan amount stated by the AO was incorrect and the statement of the alleged entry provider did not support the AO's claim. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee admits to having a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the revenue should be taxed as per Section 44DA. The interest income on the tax refund was held to be taxable in the current year as no evidence was provided to show it was taxed earlier.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act lies before the CIT(Appeals) as per Section 246A, not directly before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal filed before the ITAT was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of double disallowance and the violation of natural justice principles by the CPC. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the quantum of penalty might be affected by appellate decisions in the cases of recipients of accommodation entries. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the quantum of penalty might be affected by appellate decisions in the cases of recipients of accommodation entries. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the quantum of penalty might be affected by appellate decisions in the cases of recipients of accommodation entries. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the applicability of Section 115JB, finding it a legal issue. It allowed deductions under Section 80IA on certain income items and directed credit for TDS. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of the addition on account of unsecured loan from a promoter/director, holding he had sufficient creditworthiness. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), it directed disallowance of only 30% of the amount, following various precedents. The issue of unpaid service tax was remanded to the AO for verification, and the penalty on VAT was also remitted for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the grounds of delay, especially when the assessee alleged fault of their authorized representative. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the modification of share terms was done in accordance with the Companies Act and with the consent of shareholders. Since Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) was paid by the company, the dividend received by the assessee is exempt under Section 10(34) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued by the AO provided an unreasonably short time for compliance. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for proper inquiry and a fresh order.

The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the assessee in his individual capacity is not maintainable because he is undergoing insolvency resolution. The appeal is dismissed, but can be restored if the Insolvency Resolution Professional impleads himself.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding the forfeited salary and corresponding TDS credit was not a 'mistake apparent from record' as required for rectification under Section 154. The interpretation of 'assessable' in Rule 37BA and reliance on additional evidence were deemed outside the scope of Section 154.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are governed by Section 194-C and not Section 194-I, following its own precedents. Therefore, the assessee was not an 'assessee in default' for not deducting tax under Section 194-I.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the applicability of Section 115JB, finding it a legal issue. It allowed deductions under Section 80IA on certain income items and directed credit for TDS. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are governed by Section 194-C and not Section 194-I, following its own precedents. Therefore, the assessee was not an 'assessee in default' for not deducting tax under Section 194-I.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153A was bad in law as it was based on material found during searches on other persons, and the assessee's name was not mentioned in those search warrants. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was time-barred.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the applicability of Section 115JB, finding it a legal issue. It allowed deductions under Section 80IA on certain income items and directed credit for TDS. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in dismissing the rectification application when the assessee had provided details in the computation of income. It also found the DVO's report to be cryptic and prepared without proper opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that deemed dividend addition was not sustainable as the assessee was not a shareholder in one company and the other company had negative reserves. The addition for payment to a non-resident was deleted as the Assessing Officer failed to follow the ITAT's directions to examine the issue in light of the India-UAE DTAA.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the applicability of Section 115JB, finding it a legal issue. It allowed deductions under Section 80IA on certain income items and directed credit for TDS. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was invalid because the AO's reasons did not explicitly state the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in dismissing the rectification application when the assessee had provided details in the computation of income. It also found the DVO's report to be cryptic and prepared without proper opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a mere fall in gross profit rate is not sufficient to reject books of account under Section 145(3). The issue of interest disallowance was remanded as the addition on account of the loan was set aside in a previous year's appeal. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the grounds of delay, especially when the assessee alleged fault of their authorized representative. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence, and the AO failed to shift the burden back without independent inquiry. The fact of repayment of loans, both within the same year and subsequently, was given significant weight.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee for the use of satellite transponders are not royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's rulings in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that although the information originated from a data leak, the deposits in the HSBC bank account could not be denied. Therefore, the income from these deposits was rightly taxed as the assessee's income for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, admitting documents that were not produced before the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering these documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's offer to pay tax was to buy peace and not an admission of guilt, especially since the criminal court had already discharged the assessee due to lack of evidence. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that although the information originated from a data leak, the deposits in the HSBC bank account could not be denied. Therefore, the income from these deposits was rightly taxed as the assessee's income for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's offer to pay tax was to buy peace and not an admission of guilt, especially since the criminal court had already discharged the assessee due to lack of evidence. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the DIN numbers quoted in the assessment order and DRP directions were not found to exist on the Income Tax Department's website, the assessment order was illegal and therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the additional evidence without proper verification of notice issuance and the assessee's failure to produce evidence. Ends of justice required an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.