ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

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 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 held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as the assessee had substantiated the genuineness of the share sale transaction. The Tribunal noted that the AO's remand report supported the assessee's explanation and that the Department had not disputed the initial investment in shares.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to provident fund, when deposited after the statutory due date, cannot be allowed as a deduction. 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 held that the cash found was sufficiently explained by the cash in hand of the family members and the company's cash balance as per its books. The estimation of expenses by the CIT(A) was deemed without basis.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to provident fund, when deposited after the statutory due date, cannot be allowed as a deduction. 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 held that the payments made for arranging export sales and recovering payments were not in the nature of 'fees for technical services' as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) or the India-USA DTAA. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' and that the CIT(A) had rightly quashed the AO's order. The factual findings of the CIT(A) regarding the advance payment and deposit in the capital gains account could not be disputed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done because the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard before the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the payments made for arranging export sales and recovering payments were not in the nature of 'fees for technical services' as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) or the India-USA DTAA. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for deciding afresh.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is not fatal to claiming FTC, especially when filed before assessment completion and due to reasons beyond control. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for deciding the claim on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 144C as there was no variation in the returned income prejudicial to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the cash claimed from the proprietorship concern as the books were not rejected and the cash was not proven to be used elsewhere. For the HUF's portion, the Tribunal noted that the income under Section 44AD was accepted, and the same income could not be taxed twice.

The Tribunal held that the quantum appeal's decision has a bearing on the penalty appeal. Therefore, both appeals should be decided together by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to provident fund, when deposited after the statutory due date, cannot be allowed as a deduction. 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 held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was wrongly imposed. This was based on a previous decision by a co-ordinate bench in the quantum appeal, which had accepted the surrendered income as business income from cash sales.

The Tribunal held that income must be taxed in the year of accrual or receipt. Since the sale transaction and receipt of consideration occurred in AY 2007-08, the income should be taxed in that year, not AY 2012-13.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to determine the 'due date' for payment of PF/ESI contributions, considering whether it refers to the month for which salary is due or the month of actual payment, in light of relevant PF and ESI schemes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to R&D expenses and depreciation, finding that the assessee was eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(i) and that the installation date for machinery was misinterpreted by revenue authorities. Other grounds were either covered by previous orders or not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal heard the Learned DR and perused the records. In view of the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the violation of Sections 269SS and 269T is a substantive violation, not merely technical. Ignorance of the law by the directors, even if non-residents, is not a valid excuse for the company.

The Tribunal held that the violation of Sections 269SS and 269T is a substantive violation, not merely technical. Ignorance of the law by the directors, even if non-residents, is not a valid excuse for the company.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had made a conscious and bona fide claim with explanations.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had made a conscious and bona fide claim with explanations.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had made a conscious and bona fide claim with explanations.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as the assessee had substantiated the genuineness of the share sale transaction. The Tribunal noted that the AO's remand report supported the assessee's explanation and that the Department had not disputed the initial investment in shares.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits was not justified. The appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to additional payments, following a jurisdictional High Court decision that such violations do not automatically attract Section 37(1) without penal consequences. The Tribunal also allowed the grounds regarding Section 40A(3) disallowance, relying on a coordinate bench decision where the expenditure was not claimed as a deduction and was a reimbursement.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A, following precedents from the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. The recent amendment to Section 14A was deemed prospective.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were devoid of any incriminating material. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was invalid as it lacked proper application of mind by the approving authority. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such invalid approval were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was a mere technical approval without due application of mind by the superior authority. Consequently, the assessment orders were rendered unenforceable and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a resident of Canada, is entitled to the beneficial tax rates provided under the India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The TDS officer's order directing TDS at treaty rates was also considered relevant.

The Tribunal held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd. Receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services were also not considered royalty or fees for technical services as they did not make technical knowledge available as per the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd. Receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services were also not considered royalty or fees for technical services as they did not make technical knowledge available as per the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd. Receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services were also not considered royalty or fees for technical services as they did not make technical knowledge available as per the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal found that notices were sent to a wrong address, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were restored for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that additions for cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be made in unabated assessments under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The decision of the Supreme Court in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd was followed.

The Tribunal held that additions for cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be made in unabated assessments under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The decision of the Supreme Court in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd was followed.

The Tribunal held that additions for cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be made in unabated assessments under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The decision of the Supreme Court in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd was followed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, directing that notices be served through both physical and electronic modes.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of an estimation or a DVO's report, especially when the addition itself was restricted based on such a report. The assessee had not concealed particulars of income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) accepted documents without proper examination and investigation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to allow the AO to examine the parties and verify the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a resident of Canada, is entitled to the beneficial tax rates provided under the India-Canada Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The TDS officer's order directing TDS at treaty rates was also considered relevant.

The Tribunal held that the TPO/DRP arbitrarily selected a 3% royalty rate without proper economic analysis or comparable data. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision on similar facts, the Tribunal found no distinction and allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable for the assessment year in question regarding salary disallowance. For other expenses and repairs, a partial disallowance was upheld due to lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the books of accounts without cogent reasons and that a decline in Net Profit alone cannot be a ground for rejection. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.