ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the DRP order was invalid for not quoting a DIN in its body, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the subsequent AO order was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that employees of Hisar Agricultural University are considered to hold a civil post under the State and are entitled to the same exemptions as government employees for gratuity and leave encashment. The additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue of retention money to the AO for fresh decision considering Section 43CB. It also restored the issue of EPF contribution disallowance to the AO to verify the assessee's contention about suo-moto disallowance. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the TDS credit claim.

The CIT(A) pragmatically restricted the disallowance of interest, allowing a proportionate claim. The Tribunal found this decision logical and upheld it, stating it calls for no interference.

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of fly ash and cenosphere was credited to a separate Fly Ash Utilization Fund as per a Ministry of Environment and Forests notification and was utilized for specific purposes, thus not forming part of the assessee's taxable income. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations are capital receipts and not taxable, even if the assessee is not registered under Section 12A. Following previous judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to present its case properly. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by purchasing shares through IPO via banking channels, holding them for over a year, and selling them through demat accounts with consideration received via banking channels. The AO's assessment was based on conjecture and an investigation report that was issued after the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the interest payable to the Government was a deductible expense, not a contingent liability, based on past precedents and the mercantile system of accounting. It also allowed the write-off of repairables and rotables as a business expense and the deduction for grant-in-aid for pilot training, citing consistency and the nature of the business.

The Tribunal held that even without a registered gift deed, a de facto transfer of property is covered under the Income Tax Act. The assessee was in possession of the property, sold it via a registered sale deed, and the sale proceeds were accounted for, thus Section 69A was not applicable.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals in light of the moratorium declared by the NCLT. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the ITAT again after the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was fallacious as the loan was given out of own funds in a year with profits and no borrowed funds. The loan was also accepted as for business purposes in the year it was given.

The Tribunal held that since the enhancement made by the CIT(A) which formed the basis for the penalty was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty levied does not have a valid foundation and must be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transactions of gift of shares were valid and not sham or void. It found that the assessee had not benefited from these transactions in a manner that would attract the provisions of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction under Section 54. The assessee failed to provide evidence of purchase of a new property within the stipulated time frame, and the documents submitted were found to be beyond the permissible period.

The Tribunal held that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal decided on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the case on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals in light of the moratorium declared by the NCLT. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the ITAT again after the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeal afresh after the quantum appeal, which was pending, is decided. This was done in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was given a very brief time to respond, which violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the notice under section 153C was invalid. This was because the AO failed to demonstrate that the seized documents belonged to the assessee or had a bearing on their income determination, thus lacking the necessary nexus with incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid as it did not comply with the mandatory DIN requirement of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Any communication not conforming to the circular is deemed to have never been issued.