ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with copies of the seized material and statements relied upon, nor did the satisfaction note clearly link the alleged incriminating material to the assessment years. Consequently, the notice under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with copies of the seized material and statements relied upon, nor did the satisfaction note clearly link the alleged incriminating material to the assessment years. Consequently, the notice under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with copies of the seized material and statements relied upon, nor did the satisfaction note clearly link the alleged incriminating material to the assessment years. Consequently, the notice under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for bad debts, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt in its books and show that it was considered in earlier years' income. The assessee fulfilled these conditions, thus the deletion by CIT(A) was upheld.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including vendor PANs and ledger accounts, which the AO had ignored. The Tribunal agreed, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the advancement of interest-free loans to subsidiaries out of commercial expediency is a valid business expenditure. It also ruled that job work charges are not disallowable for lack of prior government approval under the Companies Act.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making the addition under Section 69A as the assessee had sufficient accumulated cash from declared income and other sources. The CIT(A) was also not justified in upholding a part of the addition.

The Tribunal held that for bad debts, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt in its books and show that it was considered in earlier years' income. The assessee fulfilled these conditions, thus the deletion by CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the impugned amount represented income earned by the assessee and was already offered to tax. Since the income was part of the profit and loss account and reflected in the audited books, a further addition as unexplained investment was not required.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the impugned amount represented income earned by the assessee and was already offered to tax. Since the income was part of the profit and loss account and reflected in the audited books, a further addition as unexplained investment was not required.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the share application money was adequately substantiated with evidence, including the assessment order of the investor. The Tribunal also held that expenses incurred for statutory compliance and maintaining the company's existence are allowable even during business suspension, following the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The ITAT held that the reassessment notices were illegal and bad in law because the CIT(A) order, which formed the basis for reopening, was passed without giving the assessees an opportunity to be heard. This violated the principles of natural justice and Explanation 3 to Section 153.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal held that belated employee's contribution to PF & ESI is taxable income. The deduction under Section 36(i)(va) is not permissible for belated payments, and such disallowance is permissible even under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the advancement of interest-free loans to subsidiaries out of commercial expediency is a valid business expenditure. It also ruled that job work charges are not disallowable for lack of prior government approval under the Companies Act.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to ESI/PF, if deposited after the due date, are not deductible. This is because such amounts are considered income held in trust and must be deposited on or before the due date as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO erred in substituting the sale consideration with WDV and that the 'money payable' as per Section 43(6) should be the sale price. The disallowance of depreciation was also found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's right to appeal but criticized their conduct in failing to appear before the lower appellate authority. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing denovo.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal found that crucial dates regarding the handing over of seized material and the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer were not discernible from the record. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to ascertain these dates and adjudicate the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot estimate a GP rate without rejecting the assessee's audited books of account. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loan, fulfilling the requirements of Section 68.

The Tribunal found that crucial dates regarding the handing over of seized material and the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer were not discernible from the record. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to ascertain these dates and adjudicate the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal corrected the order to reflect that grounds no. 11 to 13 were considered. Specifically, grounds no. 11 and 12 were allowed, while ground no. 13 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable as the assessee did not declare any additional income after the search compared to the original return. Therefore, the penalty order invoking this explanation was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition under an incorrect section (Section 69) as the assessee was repaying a loan, not making an investment. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) could not change the charging section without proper notice. Consequently, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the custom duty paid if it has been finalized. For ESI & PF, the Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's ruling that employee contributions must be deposited by the due date for deduction, and directed the AO to examine the ESI payment date accordingly.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires concealment of income. The disallowance was based on estimation, and the assessee argued the purchases were opening balances, not incurred in the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable as the assessee did not declare any additional income after the search compared to the original return. Therefore, the penalty order invoking this explanation was bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had not considered the assessee's evidence. The CIT(A) had correctly relied on the confirmation of loan, bank statements, and ITRs submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is to verify the assessee's contention regarding the due date of 30.11.2018.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2006-07 fell beyond the six-year period contemplated under Section 153C, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside as bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The issue of including certain comparable companies was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the AO to pass a fresh order. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and to consider the necessary documents and books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of turnover was not justified as the assessee had already declared income under Section 44AD. Regarding the capital gains, the Tribunal found that the land was agricultural and situated beyond the specified limits, thus not a capital asset.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a DIN, and without adhering to the exceptional circumstances and approval procedures outlined in CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid. Such orders are deemed to have never been issued.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a DIN, and without adhering to the exceptional circumstances and approval procedures outlined in CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid. Such orders are deemed to have never been issued.

The Tribunal held that the free-on-board (FOB) value of goods should not be included in the operating expenses or income when calculating the ALP for indenting commission. It also directed the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to re-examine the comparable companies selected by the TPO and the assessee, ensuring a proper FAR analysis and a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings without proper application of mind and on borrowed satisfaction. The reasons recorded were vague, lacking details about the nature, amount, and parties involved in the alleged transactions, thus failing to establish a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that free samples given on a principal-to-principal basis are trade incentives and not subject to TDS under Section 194H. For other payments, relief was granted if recipients declared the income, but interest under Section 201(1A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that free samples given on a principal-to-principal basis are trade incentives and not subject to TDS under Section 194H. For other payments, relief was granted if recipients declared the income, but interest under Section 201(1A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that free samples given on a principal-to-principal basis are trade incentives and not subject to TDS under Section 194H. For other payments, relief was granted if recipients declared the income, but interest under Section 201(1A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that free samples given on a principal-to-principal basis are trade incentives and not subject to TDS under Section 194H. For other payments, relief was granted if recipients declared the income, but interest under Section 201(1A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' PF/ESIC contributions should be examined on merits regarding the timely deposit date. For Section 80JJA, the belated filing of Form 10DA was not fatal if substantial compliance was made before intimation or during assessment, but the merits of eligibility also needed examination.

The Tribunal condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the amendment to the dissolution clause, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the application to the CIT for fresh consideration.