ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2023

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute the apparent consideration in sale deeds with his calculated market value without any corroborative material. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration exceeded that disclosed in the sale deeds, which was not discharged.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute the apparent consideration in sale deeds with his calculated market value without any corroborative material. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration exceeded that disclosed in the sale deeds, which was not discharged.

The Tribunal held that service tax/GST collected by the assessee and paid to the government does not form part of the gross receipts for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This is because the assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the addition was a conjecture of the AO without any cogent basis. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that there was a direct nexus between the foreign advance and the purchase of mutual fund units, warranting a disallowance under Section 14A. However, the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services case, which disallowed deductions for delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI, is applicable even to adjustments made under section 143(1). Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the sustained addition of Rs. 23,00,000. The assessee's grounds of appeal were rejected due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked specific details of 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 acknowledged the inadvertent mistake in filing the return and noted that the assessee had a history of claiming exemptions under Sections 11 and 12. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as crucial for adjudicating the main ground regarding the loan waiver. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked specific details of 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 Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked specific details of 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 service tax/GST collected by the assessee and paid to the government does not form part of the gross receipts for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This is because the assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was unjustified as the survey team did not physically verify the stock. The AO arbitrarily used a different Gross Profit rate for revaluation without proper basis and incorrectly invoked Section 69A without specific evidence of ownership of unidentified stock.

The Tribunal held that Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act, as amended to include delays attributable to the deductor, was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as the amendment was effective from 01/04/2017. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in applying it.

The Tribunal held that an omnibus penalty notice suffers from vagueness and is bad in law, as the assessee must be clearly informed of the specific charge. Following High Court precedents, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked specific details of 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 acknowledged the inadvertent mistake in filing the return and noted that the assessee had a history of claiming exemptions under Sections 11 and 12. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked specific details of 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 found that the assessee did not receive proper notice from the CIT(A) due to address changes, leading to an ex-parte order. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to contest the issues on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had elaborately considered the legal position and factual aspects. The CIT(Appeals) held that the property was acquired by the appellant by way of a gift, evidenced by a duly registered gift deed for which applicable stamp duty was paid. The donor (father-in-law) had acquired absolute ownership through a registered GPA from his brother. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) that Section 49(1) of the Act, which deems the cost of acquisition to be that of the previous owner in case of gift or will, was squarely applicable. Consequently, the period of holding of the previous owner, as specified in Section 2(42A), would also apply. Therefore, the exemption under Sections 54 and 54EC could not be denied. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative could not point out any infirmity in the CIT(Appeals)'s well-reasoned order. The issue regarding indexation of the entire property when a part was sold was not expressly decided.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on presumptions and surmises, not on concrete evidence. The Tribunal found that the cash sales pattern was consistent with previous periods and that no defects were pointed out in the audited books of account.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and not well-reasoned. Given the long pendency and lack of proper consideration, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the continuity of the loan account over several years, coupled with interest payments after TDS and repayment, indicated a genuine business transaction with an NBFC. The Tribunal also found no error in the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of commission expenses.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made relevant inquiries and the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including bills and receipts, to explain the cash deposits. The PCIT's view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was based on a difference of opinion, not a lack of evidence or non-compliance with law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper inquiry, as the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68. The CIT(A) was expected to conduct further inquiries, not just accept the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The AO had already considered the provision for expected loss during the original assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the additions made. The unsold stock was considered income from house property, and the interest expense was correctly treated as a borrowing cost to be capitalized.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were devoid of application of mind and contained factual errors. Mere suspicion and erroneous facts cannot justify reopening a completed assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable to transactions between a holding company and its subsidiary, especially when the premium is supported by a valuation report and there is no benefit to an outsider. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A)'s conclusion was correct on facts and law.

The Tribunal held that the subscription, professional, and training services rendered by the assessee do not fall within the definition of FTS under the DTAA and are therefore not taxable in India. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the subscription, professional, and training services rendered by the assessee do not fall within the definition of FTS under the DTAA and are therefore not taxable in India. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the consequent demand notice were invalid and non-est in law because they were issued without the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The approval under Section 153D, being without DIN, was also considered invalid, rendering the entire assessment void.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the consistent absence of the assessee during the scheduled hearings. Notices sent to the assessee were returned.

The Tribunal held that an astronomical increase in share prices alone is not sufficient ground to deem LTCG as an accommodation entry. The documentary evidence supported the existence of the transactions, and the Revenue failed to prove they were sham.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a Supreme Court order granting a moratorium against all proceedings against Unitech Limited and its subsidiaries. The appeal can be revived upon the final judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the opening and closing outstanding positions in derivative contracts, leading to an incorrect calculation of losses. The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for derivative losses was justified and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. The penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) was directed to be deleted, considering the assessee had shifted residence and sold property.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on a 'dumb document' which was unsigned, undated, and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds regarding this addition and deleted it.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds challenging the reopening of assessment were not pressed and thus dismissed. On merits, the Tribunal considered the additional evidence and the remand report.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to present her case, and therefore, set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the opening and closing outstanding positions in derivative contracts, leading to an incorrect calculation of losses. The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for derivative losses was justified and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a mandatory DIN are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders and subsequent penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal considered the submissions made in the letter dated 04.12.2023 filed by the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue itself was seeking withdrawal of the present appeal, stating it was filed inadvertently. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original assessment or the CIT(A)'s order was decided in this proceeding, as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a mandatory DIN are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders and subsequent penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a mandatory DIN are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders and subsequent penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed without a mandatory DIN are invalid and non-est in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the assessment orders and subsequent penalty orders were quashed.