ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should have sent notices to the assessee's email address in addition to the IT portal. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as no supporting evidence was submitted to controvert the findings of the CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee were consequently dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order, not bearing a mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, was non est and void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should have sent notices to the assessee's email address in addition to the IT portal. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that both the assessee and the TPO had erred in selecting comparables from the wrong segment. It allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding it material for justice, and directed the TPO to re-examine the issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was the owner of the property from the date of the agreement to sell and purchase, and therefore entitled to standard deduction. However, the claim for business expenses for the money lending business was not substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the evidence did not prove the property transactions were loan transactions was correct. Therefore, the addition on account of interest income was misplaced and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent material to establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessees and not to the searched person. Therefore, the invocation of Section 153C was not in accordance with law, and the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal without going into its merits. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and non-est in the eyes of law due to the mandatory requirement of quoting DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the evidence did not prove the property transactions were loan transactions was correct. Therefore, the addition on account of interest income was misplaced and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the evidence did not prove the property transactions were loan transactions was correct. Therefore, the addition on account of interest income was misplaced and deleted.

The Tribunal held that payments made on the next working day after a holiday were in due time as per the General Clauses Act, directing re-computation of disallowance. It also ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to depreciation on software, following a High Court judgment. Finally, it directed deletion of the Section 14A disallowance as the AO lacked objective satisfaction that expenditure was incurred for exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessees and not the searched person. Therefore, the invocation of Section 153C was not in accordance with the law, and the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions made in the hands of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. were deleted by a coordinate bench, the protective additions in the assessee's hands could not be sustained. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar protective additions were deleted following the deletion of substantive additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the evidence did not prove the property transactions were loan transactions was correct. Therefore, the addition on account of interest income was misplaced and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the evidence did not prove the property transactions were loan transactions was correct. Therefore, the addition on account of interest income was misplaced and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the cash withdrawals from the same bank account and the cash income earned by the assessee. Therefore, no addition was warranted on this count.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and deemed to have never been issued because it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding the quoting of DIN. The Tribunal noted that the manual issuance of the order without the prescribed format and particulars of approval rendered it non-compliant.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and deemed to have never been issued because it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding the quoting of DIN. The Tribunal noted that the manual issuance of the order without the prescribed format and particulars of approval rendered it non-compliant.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessees and not the searched person. Therefore, the invocation of Section 153C was not in accordance with the law, and the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessees and not the searched person. Therefore, the invocation of Section 153C was not in accordance with the law, and the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to strike off irrelevant portions of the penalty notice vitiated the penalty proceedings. This was based on the Bombay High Court's decision that such omnibus notices betray a non-application of mind and prejudice the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was also deleted due to the lack of an enhancement notice. Additional claims were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the evidence did not prove the property transactions were loan transactions was correct. Therefore, the addition on account of interest income was misplaced and deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 251 of the Income Tax Act does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit as the interest income, though reduced from project expenditure, was linked to business activity and the TDS was reflected in the updated Form 26AS. The disallowance by the CPC was beyond the scope of Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions made in the hands of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. were deleted by a coordinate bench, the protective additions in the assessee's hands could not be sustained. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar protective additions were deleted following the deletion of substantive additions.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as no supporting evidence was submitted to controvert the findings of the CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee were consequently dismissed.

The Tribunal held that offshore supplies are not taxable in India as the title to the goods passed outside India. It also found the allocation of receipts towards FTS to be irrational and without basis, and that the alleged PE was not involved in the offshore supply.

The Tribunal held that once the source of investment in mutual funds from the husband's bank account was accepted, there was no rationale for adding back specific remittances from that account to the assessee's income. The department should have proceeded against the husband if the remittances were unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the classification of income, particularly signage income, as 'Income from Other Sources' by the lower authorities was incorrect, especially when a predecessor's order for a prior year had treated it as 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal also addressed the allocation of expenses and other miscellaneous incomes.

The Tribunal held that offshore supplies are not taxable in India as the title to the goods passed outside India. It also found the allocation of receipts towards FTS to be irrational and without basis, and that the alleged PE was not involved in the offshore supply.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI remitted beyond the due date specified under the PF/ESI Act is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This decision follows the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and non-est in the eyes of law due to the absence of a mandatory DIN, as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.

The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's grievance, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal stated that the revenue is bound by the jurisdictional High Court's decision and cannot be aggrieved by it before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents like board resolutions, FIRC, and audited financials of the holding company, establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital. The disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was also found to be wrongly applied.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's contention that the due date should be the date of actual salary disbursement and pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the AO to proceed under Section 150 and reframe the assessment. The assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following previous precedents in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding Section 14A disallowances.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Following previous precedents in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding Section 14A disallowances.

The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's grievance, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal stated that the revenue is bound by the jurisdictional High Court's decision and cannot be aggrieved by it before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the classification of income, particularly signage income, as 'Income from Other Sources' by the lower authorities was incorrect, especially when a predecessor's order for a prior year had treated it as 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal also addressed the allocation of expenses and other miscellaneous incomes.

The Tribunal held that the classification of income, particularly signage income, as 'Income from Other Sources' by the lower authorities was incorrect, especially when a predecessor's order for a prior year had treated it as 'Income from House Property'. The Tribunal also addressed the allocation of expenses and other miscellaneous incomes.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue conceded this factual position.

The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's grievance, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal stated that the revenue is bound by the jurisdictional High Court's decision and cannot be aggrieved by it before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to FOWC were not sustainable as the payee had declared income and paid tax, and the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision. Disallowances for FOM were deleted as the chargeable sum was negative. Disallowances for bank guarantee commission were also deleted, following a prior ITAT ruling that Section 194H did not apply.

The Tribunal decided that the selection of certain comparables by the TPO was debatable and directed the AO to re-examine the working capital adjustment claim. It also held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax on management fees was unsustainable, following a coordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal allowed deduction for employee PF/ESI contributions paid one day late when the due date fell on a holiday. For other delayed contributions, the issue of whether the due date is based on salary disbursement month or calendar month was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to FOWC were not sustainable as the payee had declared income and paid tax, and the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision. Disallowances for FOM were deleted as the chargeable sum was negative. Disallowances for bank guarantee commission were also deleted, following a prior ITAT ruling that Section 194H did not apply.