ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

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 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 held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. It also held that TDS return filing charges are allowable business expenditure.

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 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 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 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 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 found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the grounds to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction based on a lack of inquiry without conducting any supplemental inquiry himself. The Tribunal stated that the AO's order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue without such further inquiry by the revisional authority.

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 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 Section 143(1) mandates that no adjustments can be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee and a period of 30 days is allowed for a response. As there was no evidence of such intimation, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that Section 143(1) mandates that no adjustments can be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee and a period of 30 days is allowed for a response. As there was no evidence of such intimation, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

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 admitted an additional ground challenging the reassessment proceedings initiated without independent application of mind by the AO. It also admitted additional evidence related to Section 68 additions, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility and reliability of the data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee's contribution to EPF/ESI must be deposited on or before the due date to be eligible for deduction. Belated deposit does not allow for deduction.

The Tribunal held that while a search was conducted, no incriminating material was found or seized that could justify the additions made under Section 153A. The additions were based on book entries already disclosed and not on any new information unearthed during the search.

The Tribunal found that the notices issued by the CIT(Exemptions) did not contain any address, making it unclear where they were sent. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the applications to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper notice and without deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the notices issued by the CIT(Exemptions) did not contain any address, making it unclear where they were sent. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the applications to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the creditworthiness of creditors and the genuineness of transactions, as required under Section 68. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) ought to have provided a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a rehearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and without passing a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition/disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied based on it cannot survive. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was time-barred because the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions were communicated on November 30, 2021, making the assessment order dated January 31, 2022, invalid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the reassessment proceedings initiated without independent application of mind by the AO. It also admitted additional evidence related to Section 68 additions, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the land was a capital asset and not stock-in-trade, as there was no concrete action taken by the assessee and his brother to develop the land as a business venture, despite the existence of an MOU. The medical condition of the brother was not considered sufficient to explain the lack of action over several years.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, considering it based on market trends for accommodation entries, not ad-hoc.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) ought to have provided a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a rehearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the reassessment proceedings initiated without independent application of mind by the AO. It also admitted additional evidence related to Section 68 additions, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that revenue earned from cloud services is not taxable as royalty under domestic law or the India-USA DTAA. This decision aligns with previous rulings and the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order before the final assessment order is a mandatory procedural requirement and not a curable defect. Consequently, the final assessment order and subsequent proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to be heard and without considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. The assessee's difficulties in electronically filing the appeals due to technical glitches were considered a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to be heard and without considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay due to technical glitches.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice, by not striking off the irrelevant portions, betrayed a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Following a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, this procedural flaw was considered fatal to the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowed capital is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) read with Section 43B, as the assessee is not covered by the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) and the borrowed funds were used for business purposes. The Tribunal noted that similar claims were allowed in previous and subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal restored the issue of consolidated ESI and EPF contributions to the AO for fresh adjudication. It also remanded the disallowance of carry forward loss and the disallowance of tax refund to the AO for verification and decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal dismissed the technical grounds regarding the admissibility of data from the laptop, finding the panchnama established seizure. However, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding commission income, holding it was not ad-hoc but based on market trends for accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the AO made inadequate and insufficient inquiries before accepting the returned income. The PCIT was justified in initiating revisionary proceedings under Section 263 due to the AO's failure to properly verify the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans and advances.