ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied under. Furthermore, the penalty had been dropped earlier and there was no additional income determined to warrant a subsequent imposition.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A are permissible only with respect to incriminating material found during search, if the assessment year was already concluded and unabated. Since no such material was found, the AO was not entitled to make the addition.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the deletion made by the CIT(A) was less than Rs. 50 lacs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was bad in law as it did not conform to the binding directions of the DRP. Following the precedents of the jurisdictional High Court, the matter was remitted to the AO to pass an order incorporating the DRP's directions.

The tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea to grant TDS credit in AY 2018-19, as the sale deed was executed in that year, and the revenue did not demonstrate any prejudice. The AO was directed to grant the credit.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied under. Furthermore, the penalty had been dropped earlier and there was no additional income determined to warrant a subsequent imposition.

The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Pr. CIT for fresh consideration. The Pr. CIT was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in identical cases, held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee was a key factor.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a DIN, and without adhering to the prescribed procedure for manual issuance, are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding a lack of opportunity to justify the cash deposits. The CIT(A) did not properly deal with the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the provisions were not contingent liabilities but rather payments for goods in transit and claims that were subsequently paid or adjusted in the following financial year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in identical cases, held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee was a key factor.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were invalid due to being unsigned, not properly served, and lacking the mandatory DIN. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid and non-est in law due to the mandatory absence of DIN, following previous rulings and a jurisdictional High Court decision. However, liberty was granted to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the order fell under the exceptions provided in the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were invalid due to being unsigned, not properly served, and lacking the mandatory DIN. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid and non-est in law due to the mandatory absence of DIN, following previous rulings and a jurisdictional High Court decision. However, liberty was granted to the revenue to approach the Tribunal if the order fell under the exceptions provided in the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the AO is bound by the TPO's order under Section 92CA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and cannot re-determine the arm's length price. The AO's deviation from the TPO's finding was deemed impermissible.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were invalid due to being unsigned, not properly served, and lacking the mandatory DIN. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions, lacking the mandatory DIN in their body, were invalid. Consequently, the final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer based on these invalid directions were also deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not Section 144, and the assessee had cooperated in the assessment proceedings, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable. The earlier defaults were considered as good compliance.

The Tribunal found that the TPO erred in not following the DRP's directions regarding search filters, leading to an erroneous search process. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh determination of ALP with correct search filters.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's recomputation of capital gains based on stamp valuation, as the assessee provided no contrary material. Similarly, the addition for share capital was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that brokerage expenses are allowable as they are incurred in the ordinary course of business and are revenue neutral if income is tax-free. It also held that income from car parking, health club, food court, and interest are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IAB as they are linked to the main SEZ activities.

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

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on a difference in valuation perception and was a debatable issue, not automatically leading to concealment. The AO's satisfaction for penalty was unfounded, and the basis for penalty was shifted, making it unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The issue of set-off of capital loss was remanded for examination by the AO.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it crucial to the dispute. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted a fallacy in the AO's approach, particularly the application of Section 68 to purchase consideration (outflow) and the reliance on an outdated SEBI report. However, it also acknowledged that the CIT(A) proceedings were not attended by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessments. It was noted that for AY 2012-13, no satisfaction note was recorded, and for other years, no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no infirmity in taxing the profit shown in the audited accounts. The assessee failed to provide proper reconciliation and clarification for the recasted accounts.

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

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the assessment under Section 153C was invalid as no satisfaction note was recorded. For other assessment years, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue had initiated fresh reassessment proceedings, rendering the impugned assessment orders non-est.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the assessment under Section 153C was invalid as no satisfaction note was recorded. For other assessment years, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue had initiated fresh reassessment proceedings, rendering the impugned assessment orders non-est.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessments. It was noted that for AY 2012-13, no satisfaction note was recorded, and for other years, no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal held that based on previous decisions of coordinate benches on identical facts, no TDS was liable to be deducted on EDC payments to HUDA. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order, lacking a mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued. This decision was based on precedents from the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, held that CAM charges are not rent but contractual payments for services, thus falling under Section 194C. The addition was directed to be deleted.

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

The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions, lacking the mandatory DIN in their body, were invalid. Consequently, the final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer based on these invalid directions were also deemed bad in law.