ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2023

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.

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.

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 a statement surrendering undisclosed income during a survey is not conclusive and can be retracted if explained. Since the assessee provided explanations for the retracted statement which were not found to be false, the addition was not sustainable.

For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, additions were deleted as no incriminating material was found during the search. For AY 2015-16, an issue regarding unsecured loans was allowed, while an issue regarding cash deposits was restored to the AO for de-novo consideration. For AY 2016-17, the issue of cash deposits was also restored to the AO for de-novo consideration.

For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, additions were deleted as no incriminating material was found during the search. For AY 2015-16, an issue regarding unsecured loans was allowed, while an issue regarding cash deposits was restored to the AO for de-novo consideration. For AY 2016-17, the issue of cash deposits was also restored to the AO for de-novo consideration.

For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, additions were deleted as no incriminating material was found during the search. For AY 2015-16, an issue regarding unsecured loans was allowed, while an issue regarding cash deposits was restored to the AO for de-novo consideration. For AY 2016-17, the issue of cash deposits was also restored to the AO for de-novo consideration.

For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, additions were deleted as no incriminating material was found during the search. For AY 2015-16, an issue regarding unsecured loans was allowed, while an issue regarding cash deposits was restored to the AO for de-novo consideration. For AY 2016-17, the issue of cash deposits was also restored to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities should have provided a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to explain its eligibility for deduction under Section 80IC. Therefore, the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged his onus of explaining the nature and source of the transactions. The explanation was supported by evidence, including a confirmation from Mr. Deepak and the firm's cash book and sales records. The addition was based on suspicion and surmises.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid due to non-filing of the return and was within the time limit. It directed the AO to allow set-off for cash withdrawals against cash deposits.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment order were invalid as they were passed against a deceased person. The fact of death was brought to the revenue's notice prior to the issuance of the notice.

The Tribunal held that there was no effective representation for the assessee before the lower authorities and to uphold the principle of natural justice, the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that a show cause notice was issued proposing additions, but the CIT(A) dismissed the ground for lack of the draft order. To uphold natural justice, the Tribunal restored the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee did not have a sufficient opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities and set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the grounds on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default without addressing the issues.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's dismissal for non-prosecution was questionable as it was unclear if notices were properly served. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be applied to compute book profit under Section 115JB. It also found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of entry tax as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal restored the issue of inventory valuation to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the withdrawals were from the assessee's own bank account, his absence from India was proven, and cash availability was not disputed, no addition under Section 69A was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had no scope for rectification under Section 154 as the surrendered amount was already accounted for in the P&L account and disclosed in the books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be applied to compute book profit under Section 115JB. It also found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of entry tax as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal restored the issue of inventory valuation to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the management support services provided by the assessee did not fall under the definition of FTS as they did not make available technical knowledge or skill to the recipient, following its own previous decisions on identical facts. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the plea for granting TDS credit.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional grounds without proper consideration, as the assessee had the right to question the AO's jurisdiction. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the additional grounds.

The Tribunal held that the administrative fees received by the assessee do not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA. The assessee merely provides access to a database of unique numbers, not a right to use any intellectual property or impart technical information.

The Assessing Officer, after verification, accepted the assessee's claim that no interest was liable to be charged under section 201(1A) as the amount was NIL. The Tribunal found no grievance in the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from ground handling and other services provided by the assessee's Head Office in Malaysia were taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services. The assessee failed to provide any rebuttal to the findings of the DRP or the AO.

The Tribunal found an inconsistency in the AO's approach, as he accepted purchases and payments but doubted only the outstanding balances. The assessee was granted an opportunity to submit further details.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6 crores as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal restored the issue of property valuation to the Assessing Officer to refer it to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value. The issues regarding unexplained investment and TDS credit were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the administrative fees received by the assessee do not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA. The assessee merely provides access to a database of unique numbers, not a right to use any intellectual property or impart technical information.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) order, finding no infirmity in its decision to treat the receipts from software licenses and related services as not royalty. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment was erroneously made as it pertained to another entity (Boeing Corporation India Ltd.) and resulted in double taxation. Furthermore, the adjustment was made without any reference to the TPO, which is a procedural lapse.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiries and verifications regarding the expenses and loans. The Principal CIT failed to provide material to prove any error or prejudice to the revenue, and Explanation 2 to Section 263 was not attracted.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that payments were made via cheques for cash withdrawals used for renovation. The AO's disallowance based on the absence of a written agreement was deemed insufficient to reject the claim.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide cogent material to demonstrate that the assessee benefited from the alleged bogus loss. The transactions were conducted through the Bombay Stock Exchange and STT was paid, indicating they were not sham.

The Tribunal found duplicate entries in Form 26AS and directed the deletion of the addition made under income from other sources. The salary income was determined at Rs. 66,77,248/-, and credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 18,57,271/- was to be granted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for payments made to M/s. For-A Company Ltd. and other creditors. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had made additions without confronting the assessee with the non-receipt of replies from creditors.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6 crores as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that additions made without incriminating material found during the search are unsustainable, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The addition on account of deemed dividend was also deleted as the assessee was not a registered shareholder.

The Tribunal held that additions made without incriminating material found during the search are unsustainable, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The addition on account of deemed dividend was also deleted as the assessee was not a registered shareholder.

The Tribunal held that additions made without incriminating material found during the search are unsustainable, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The addition on account of deemed dividend was also deleted as the assessee was not a registered shareholder.

The Tribunal held that the pen drive extract was a mere proposal and not evidence of a transaction, and the AO's arbitrary splitting of additions was unsustainable. Regarding expenditures, the Tribunal found contradictory reasoning by the AO and CIT(A) and inclined to allow the assessee's ground.