ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee substantially complied with the provisions of Section 54 by reinvesting the sale consideration in a new house property within the prescribed time. The assessee should not be denied exemption for a procedural irregularity of not routing funds through the 'Capital Gains Accounts Scheme'.

The Tribunal held that compensation paid for termination of ESOP is revenue expenditure, following the decisions of the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot widen the scope of limited scrutiny without prior approval from the prescribed authorities. Since such approval was lacking and the additions were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, the assessment order on these issues was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of an investor's decision to invest in a loss-making company. The assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence, and the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding depreciation on Windmill Turbine Generators and the disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's habit of withdrawing and redepositing cash, though perhaps unusual, was supported by a cash flow chart. Since no defect was pointed out in this practice, the assessee had discharged her initial burden of explaining the source of the deposit.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 139(4) should be construed as filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) for all purposes, making the penalty under Section 271F unsustainable. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was upheld due to the assessee's non-cooperation during reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions based on presumptions and surmises without pointing out specific defects in the regularly maintained books of account. The assessee had discharged the initial onus to explain the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified limit.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 139(4) should be construed as filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(1) for all purposes, making the penalty under Section 271F unsustainable. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was upheld due to the assessee's non-cooperation during reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Service Tax/GST collected by the assessee is not includible in gross receipts for Section 44BB. This is based on established High Court and ITAT judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if the scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not duly informed as notices were sent to the professional's email address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief on an ad-hoc basis without proper evidence or inquiry into duplicated expenses. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining necessary information.

The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. The seized documents, which were merely copies of cheques issued by the assessee, did not provide any basis for the AO to form a satisfaction that they had a bearing on the assessee's total income.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including a decision on the admission of additional evidence.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including a decision on the admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding depreciation on Windmill Turbine Generators and the disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the notice u/s 148 was not validly served as it was sent to an old address when a new address was available from 2011. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that for penalty under Section 271AAB to be applicable, there must be undisclosed income found during a search. Since the rental income was regularly offered to tax and the AO did not provide any basis for the differential amount, the penalty was not sustainable.

The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) improperly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C. The seized documents, which were merely copies of cheques issued by the assessee, did not provide any basis for the AO to form a satisfaction that they had a bearing on the assessee's total income.

The Tribunal held that payments of EDC to HUDA were not in pursuance of any contract between the assessee and HUDA, but rather charges levied by the Haryana Government for external development. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding depreciation on Windmill Turbine Generators and the disallowance under Section 14A.

The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. The seized documents, which were merely copies of cheques issued by the assessee, did not provide any basis for the AO to form a satisfaction that they had a bearing on the assessee's total income.

The Tribunal held that the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the intimation under section 143(1) was served on the assessee. Since the Revenue failed to provide proof of service, the intimation was treated as non-est. The Tribunal also found no evidence of fraudulent claim of TDS by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding depreciation on Windmill Turbine Generators and the disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance requires actual expenditure, not imagined expenditure. Since the assessee did not incur any direct or indirect expenditure for earning exempt income, the disallowance made by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also allowed the filing of additional evidence, consisting of revenue records to support agricultural income claims, and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. The seized documents, which were merely copies of cheques issued by the assessee, did not provide any basis for the AO to form a satisfaction that they had a bearing on the assessee's total income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked specific details about seized materials, relevant assessment years, and how the materials were incriminating. Furthermore, the additions made were not based on incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including the donor's passport, bank statements, and confirmation letters, to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gift. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adequately considered the evidence submitted.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The CIT(A) rightly allowed the exemption, finding no violation of Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d). The tribunal agreed that the lease period was substantial, standard clauses did not indicate direct or indirect benefit to prohibited persons, and the AO's concerns were speculative.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. This was done to subserve the interest of natural justice, considering the assessee's difficulties with the appeal system.

The tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D without a DIN is invalid as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid approval is also unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of having disclosed the cash in hand under IDS-2016 requires verification. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee could not be taxed as royalty, following its own decision for the preceding assessment year. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities taxing these receipts as royalty were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities fall under 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' as per Section 2(15). Registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively, and for a specific year, the assessee would be taxed as a normal business assessee if receipts exceed the threshold.

The Tribunal held that the activities performed by the Indian entity were primarily for the delivery of services. It also ruled that the Transactional Net Margin Method was appropriate for determining arm's length price and that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as no advance tax was payable.

The Tribunal held that the activities performed by the Indian entity were primarily for the delivery of services. It also ruled that the Transactional Net Margin Method was appropriate for determining arm's length price and that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as no advance tax was payable.

The Tribunal held that the activities performed by the Indian entity were primarily for the delivery of services. It also ruled that the Transactional Net Margin Method was appropriate for determining arm's length price and that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as no advance tax was payable.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.