ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that the transfer charges, though claimed against the wrong property, were otherwise allowable as a deduction for capital gains computation. Regarding the renovation expenses, the Tribunal found that the AO had not discharged the burden of proving the claim was incorrect and that the disallowance was based on presumption.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in reducing the income of the assessee in consonance with the reduction of TDS credit, as per the revised Form 26AS. It noted that Section 154(5) allows for reduction in assessment and that revenue cannot be unjustly enriched.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's past profit margins were lower, the AO's rejection of books was justified. However, estimating the profit at 5% was considered excessive. Therefore, the Tribunal determined a net profit of 3.5% to be fair.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in upholding the valuation report submitted by the assessee. The AO had failed to provide cogent reasons to disregard the valuation report which was prepared as per prescribed methods.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide afresh. The AO was directed to verify the 'due date' as specified in the respective Acts and consider the Tax Audit Report and return of income filed under Section 44AB.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to denial of FTC, especially considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 and the directory nature of the rule. The FTC claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year in the cause title of the order dated 11.04.2023 was a typographical error. The incorrect assessment year was replaced with the correct assessment year 2010-11.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to examine the assessee's consistent accounting method and verify the amount of Rs. 70,77,519, which represented invoiced value of jobs in progress. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide afresh. The AO was directed to verify the 'due date' as specified in the respective Acts and consider the Tax Audit Report and return of income filed under Section 44AB.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found that the purchases were not genuine and constituted unexplained expenditure, as the companies involved were used for providing accommodation entries.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the business model necessitated such expenditures for promotion and that ad-hoc disallowances without specific evidence were unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient details and that the nature of the business involved expenditures supported by self-drawn vouchers.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the DRP order, lacking a DIN, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the final assessment order passed pursuant to the invalid DRP order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions, making the interest disallowance justified.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide afresh. The AO was directed to verify the 'due date' as specified in the respective Acts and consider the Tax Audit Report and return of income filed under Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the TPO's and DRP's orders, as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, renders these orders void. The simultaneous generation of DIN later is insignificant if not quoted on the communication itself.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the realization of invoices and outstanding receivables. The Tribunal decided to restore the entire issue of interest imputation on receivables to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, considering the additional evidence and relevant High Court decisions.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's consistent non-appearance and the ex parte nature of the lower authorities' orders, found no reason to interfere. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since registration under Section 12AA was already granted by the CIT(E) on an earlier date in compliance with the ITAT's order, no further order was required in the present appeal. The earlier order granting registration was deemed effective.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed and unabated, and no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, the Assessing Officer could not make additions based on book entries already disclosed. The additions were therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 33 days was covered by the Supreme Court's extended limitation period. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN are non-est in the eyes of law, as this is not a curable defect. Subsequent DIN generation or intimation does not validate such orders.

The Tribunal held that if tax has been deducted at source by the payer, the assessee should get credit for it. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the Transaction Based Reports to verify TDS deductions and allow the claim, including additional TDS on income not chargeable to tax under the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN are non-est in the eyes of law, as this is not a curable defect. Subsequent DIN generation or intimation does not validate such orders.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 as the reasons recorded were vague and lacked credible material. The belief of escapement was considered a mere pretense and suspicion, not a 'reason to believe'.

The Tribunal held that the addition made was arbitrary and not based on cogent evidence, considering the family's status and customs. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and ITAT judgments, held that the explanation regarding inherited and received jewellery on occasions from well-placed families was acceptable. The Tribunal found that the quantum of jewellery was not abnormal given the family's status and customs.

The Tribunal held that the loose sheets were 'dumb documents' whose author was unknown and that the AO failed to examine the sellers or construction personnel. Given it was the first year of business and no revenue was generated, the Tribunal found no merit in the additions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) enhanced the addition without issuing a show-cause notice to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The enhancement order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the loose sheets were 'dumb documents' whose author was unknown and that the AO failed to examine the sellers or construction personnel. Given it was the first year of business and no revenue was generated, the Tribunal found no merit in the additions.

The Tribunal held that the statements of partners recorded during the search were unreliable due to being taken at odd hours and without proper documentation. The Tribunal found that the cash and stock were accounted for in the books maintained at the main office, which were not searched.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding the deletion of additions under Section 41 and PMS fees. It partly allowed the appeal concerning unsecured loans and remanded the issue of director's remuneration for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of agricultural activity or ownership of land. It also found the cash gift from the father to be not genuine due to suspicious bank transactions.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing provisions were not attracted as the foreign entities were not AEs. It also ruled that the leasehold improvement expenses were revenue in nature and deductible. The additional ground regarding education cess was dismissed as not pressed.

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 set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was given an opportunity to establish the source of funds for the property acquisition with corroboration.

The Tribunal held that additions made in reassessment proceedings must be based on the reasons recorded for reopening. Since the additions were made on grounds unrelated to the original reasons, they were not sustainable in law.

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 the applicability of Section 115BBE to income surrendered before its amended provisions came into effect was a debatable issue. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue on a debatable point.

The Tribunal held that the purchasers acted in good faith and were unaware of the seller's NRI status at the time of purchase. Since the seller had offered capital gains and paid taxes, there was no loss to the revenue. Therefore, the assessees could not be considered as assessees in default.

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 the purchasers acted in good faith and were unaware of the seller's NRI status at the time of purchase. Since the seller had offered capital gains and paid taxes, there was no loss to the revenue. Therefore, the assessees could not be considered as assessees in default.

The Tribunal held that the purchasers acted in good faith and were unaware of the seller's NRI status at the time of purchase. Since the seller had offered capital gains and paid taxes, there was no loss to the revenue. Therefore, the assessees could not be considered as assessees in default.

The Tribunal held that the purchasers acted in good faith and were unaware of the seller's NRI status at the time of purchase. Since the seller had offered capital gains and paid taxes, there was no loss to the revenue. Therefore, the assessees could not be considered as assessees in default.

The Tribunal held that the purchasers acted in good faith and were unaware of the seller's NRI status at the time of purchase. Since the seller had offered capital gains and paid taxes, there was no loss to the revenue. Therefore, the assessees could not be considered as assessees in default.

The Tribunal held that it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to pass an order on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.