ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not rectify the defects pointed out by the Registry and did not appear for the hearing, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal restored several issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. These included the treatment of provisions for pay revision, gratuity, bad and doubtful debts, and the applicability of Section 14A. The grounds related to the computation of book profit under Section 115JA were also restored.

The Tribunal restored several issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. These included the treatment of provisions for pay revision, gratuity, bad and doubtful debts, and the applicability of Section 14A. The grounds related to the computation of book profit under Section 115JA were also restored.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds of appeal, including disallowances related to remuneration, temple expenses, staff recreation clubs, Section 80IA deductions, and power charges. The primary focus was on the disallowance under Section 14A, with specific directions for re-working the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, considering the assessee's explanation and relevant CBDT instructions. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions regarding the reasonable allowance for jewellery.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient declared cash available for deposit, considering the opening cash in hand, cash withdrawals, and cash sales. The lower authorities' decision to disallow the cash deposit was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the primary grievance of the assessee was against the disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was taken up for hearing despite an adjournment request.

The Tribunal found that certain amounts treated as deposits were actually withdrawals and directed their deletion. However, it confirmed additions related to other cash deposits due to illogical explanations regarding source and handling of funds. The issue of closing balances was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders not complying with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the orders of the lower appellate authority were also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention if the assessee was given an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68 for share premium, and prior to AY 2013-14, there was no onus to justify the premium. It also held that Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted in the hands of the payer and that reserves and surplus could not exist for a newly incorporated company when the advance was given.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries during the assessment proceedings. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without the mandatory DIN, and without recording reasons or obtaining prior approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without the mandatory DIN, and without recording reasons or obtaining prior approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without the mandatory DIN, and without recording reasons or obtaining prior approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without the mandatory DIN, and without recording reasons or obtaining prior approval for manual issuance, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide reliable documentary evidence to justify its revised cost estimations and projected losses. The DRP's decision to recognize revenue based on the original contract cost was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat specific expenses like advertisement, business promotion, and trade events as pass-through costs, not subject to mark-up. It also agreed that foreign exchange loss and interest expenses are non-operating and should be excluded from the profit-level indicator calculation.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders not complying with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the orders of the lower appellate authority were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders not complying with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates DIN, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the orders of the lower appellate authority were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's delay in filing the appeal was not condoned due to a lack of bonafide intention. The assessee waited for the outcome of the re-assessment proceedings before filing the appeal against the Section 263 order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the addition made by the AO. It was noted that there is no restriction on borrowing new loans to repay old ones, and interest on such new loans is allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal found that the loan amounts and interest costs were relatable and not more than the gross value of the asset.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. Since the loan was repaid within three days and the repayment was not doubted, there was no reason to question the taking of the loan.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly consider the assessee's explanation for the cash and failed to address the jewellery's source in the assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that suspension of trading on a stock exchange does not automatically make a company not one in which the public is substantially interested, thus Section 56(2)(viia) was not attracted. It also found no evidence to disallow the claimed losses on shares.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly consider the assessee's explanation for the cash and failed to address the jewellery's source in the assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO should recompute the interest by first giving full credit for taxes paid and then levying interest on the remaining demand. Interest should not be levied on the demand stayed by the High Court.

The tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to defend its claim for registration. The case was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient means and the explanation regarding the source of investment in the watches was plausible. The addition under Section 69A was deemed unsustainable as no evidence suggested the purchase was made in the impugned assessment year.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessment year is completed and unabated at the time of search, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC and the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC, the appeal could not be pursued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid as it did not comply with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 by failing to quote the DIN. Consequently, the DRP and Assessing Officer's orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders under Section 271D were valid as the JCIT had initiated the proceedings and there was no requirement for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction during a Section 143(3) assessment. The explanation of ignorance of law was also not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid as it did not comply with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 by failing to quote the DIN. Consequently, the DRP and Assessing Officer's orders were quashed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The assessee stated they would pursue other legal remedies for claiming the refund.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal also noted that a statement used by the AO was not properly confronted to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal also noted that a statement used by the AO was not properly confronted to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessment year is completed and unabated at the time of search, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted by a prior Tribunal order, the penalty cannot stand. Therefore, the penalty order is quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the methodology of calculating the default period. The AO needs to determine the due date for remittance of PF/ESI contributions based on salary disbursement month, not calendar month.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders under Section 271D were valid as they were initiated and passed by the JCIT, and no specific satisfaction in the assessment order under Section 143(3) was required. The explanation of ignorance of law was not accepted as a reasonable cause for violating Section 269SS.