ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of interest expenses to 12% of the interest-free loans given. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, considering the assessee's failure to establish the disbursement of interest-free loans.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reassessment without applying his mind to the available material, leading to a lack of valid jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the order passed were invalidated.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses. The assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to demonstrate the genuineness of the commission agents and their role in procuring sales, and the invoices submitted lacked essential details.

The Tribunal held that depreciation directly related to the eligible ETP unit should be deducted, upholding the Assessing Officer's calculation. However, other indirect expenses like administrative, manufacturing, and selling were found to be unrelated to the eligible unit and thus should not be apportioned.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the methodology of calculation of default based on the month of salary disbursement and provide an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the disputed additions, they are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not dispute the levy of liquidated damages, and the delay in delivery was an undisputed fact. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the assessee incurred the liability to pay liquidated damages the moment it defaulted on delivery, making it an ascertained liability.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to statutory deductions and foreign travel expenses. It allowed ground related to capital contribution for statistical purposes, remanding it for readjudication. Ground related to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a previous order. Consequently, the penalty levied on that addition was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income, which was only dividend income. Regarding wharfage charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. For commission expenses, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that depreciation directly related to the eligible ETP unit should be deducted, upholding the Assessing Officer's calculation. However, other indirect expenses like administrative, manufacturing, and selling were found to be unrelated to the eligible unit and thus should not be apportioned.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities. For the cash payment, the assessee failed to substantiate the source of payment. For share application money, the assessee failed to provide required details to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the loan was not received in the current year. The repayment was also made through proper banking channels with sufficient funds.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which characterized similar income as business income, was binding. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in treating the income as capital gains.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes on certain grounds, including the starting point of income computation. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and LWF, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes on certain grounds, including the starting point of income computation. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and LWF, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits based on her cash flow statement and significant cash withdrawals prior to demonetization. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not dispute the levy of liquidated damages, and the delay in delivery was an undisputed fact. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the assessee incurred the liability to pay liquidated damages the moment it defaulted on delivery, making it an ascertained liability.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague and did not specify the exact charge, which is a fatal flaw in penalty proceedings. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT, the penalty was liable to be deleted on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that since the disputed tax was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the assessee is automatically eligible for immunity from penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty levied is liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not dispute the levy of liquidated damages, and the delay in delivery was an undisputed fact. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the assessee incurred the liability to pay liquidated damages the moment it defaulted on delivery, making it an ascertained liability.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the capital contributing companies. The Tribunal noted that LLPs are treated similarly to partnership firms under the Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete additions without allowing the AO to comment on new evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the cost of construction needs to be adjusted for the age factor of the building. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains by increasing the cost of construction adopted by the CIT(A) by 20% for each year of construction.

The Tribunal held that the cost of construction needs to be adjusted for the age factor of the building. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains by increasing the cost of construction adopted by the CIT(A) by 20% for each year of construction.

The Tribunal held that the cost of construction needs to be adjusted for the age factor of the building. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains by increasing the cost of construction adopted by the CIT(A) by 20% for each year of construction.

The Tribunal held that the cost of construction needs to be adjusted for the age factor of the building. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains by increasing the cost of construction adopted by the CIT(A) by 20% for each year of construction.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income, which was only dividend income. Regarding wharfage charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. For commission expenses, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the seized document suggesting a higher sale consideration and the non-compliance of summons by the purchaser. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee was of a capital nature. This was because the subsidy was intended to facilitate the setting up of new units or expansion of existing businesses, rather than to meet recurring expenses.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to start computation from the return of income and restore TDS credit verification. The revenue's appeal was allowed, upholding the disallowance of employee's PF/LWF contributions deposited after the due date, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that certain companies, specifically TCS E-Serve, TCS E-Serve International, and Accentia Technologies, were not comparable to the assessee due to functional dissimilarity, brand value, and extraordinary events like amalgamation. Therefore, these companies should be excluded from the comparable set.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the documents produced by the assessee and had passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, even if the funds were not immediately invested. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest on income tax refunds should be taxed at the beneficial rate of 10% as per the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify TDS credit and grant relief on the additional tax levied on special income.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made reasonable inquiries, and the Pr.CIT's reliance on old search material and the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to confront new material were flawed. The Tribunal found the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 to be without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not make available technical knowledge, skill, or know-how to the Indian subsidiary, a condition for FIS under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. Therefore, the receipts could not be taxed as FIS.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the factual contention that the two flats were purchased for use as a single residential unit. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the benefit of exemption under Sections 54 and 54F if satisfied.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the Section 14A disallowance, finding it covered by High Court precedents and the assessee's own case. For the interest disallowance issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the AO/TPO to verify data without calling for a remand report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for share application money to Rs. 30,00,000 and the addition for commission to Rs. 90,000. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly evaluated the factual position.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly considered the documentary evidence and submissions. Therefore, the issue of interest under Section 244A(1A) was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.