Loading ITAT cases…
4,939 tribunal orders from the Delhi bench in 2024.
Showing 40 of 4,939 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the addition for share capital under Section 68 was partly justified, but the quantification needed adjustment. For the "on-money" addition, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4.25 crores, apportioned equally between the two assessees, rejecting the claim that it should be assessed in the year of sale deed registration.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the Checkmate Services judgment on belated PF/ESI payments, remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify if contributions were deposited within the due dates as per respective statutes, considering specific arguments about contractor employees. The issue of TDS credit mismatch was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of TDS certificates and necessary action.
The tribunal dismissed three Revenue appeals due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular 9/2024 and rejected corresponding cross-objections as not pressed. For assessments related to search action (AYs 2007-08 to 2011-12), the tribunal quashed them, holding that additions not based on incriminating material from the assessee's own search were unsustainable, referencing the Supreme Court's *Abhisar Buildwell* decision. For AY 2013-14 (ITA No. 379/Del/2017), a regular assessment, the tribunal upheld the Section 14A disallowance and rejected the assessee's additional ground regarding Section 153D approval.
The Tribunal held that the addition for share capital under Section 68 was partly justified, but the quantification needed adjustment. For the "on-money" addition, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4.25 crores, apportioned equally between the two assessees, rejecting the claim that it should be assessed in the year of sale deed registration.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, acknowledging its critical relevance to the core issue, despite its belated submission. It remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh factual verification. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to present and prove all relevant facts during these consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the addition for share capital under Section 68 was partly justified, but the quantification needed adjustment. For the "on-money" addition, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4.25 crores, apportioned equally between the two assessees, rejecting the claim that it should be assessed in the year of sale deed registration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the delay of 38 days in filing Audit Report Form 10B was merely a procedural lapse, not a fatal one that should disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that the requirement of furnishing the audit report is mandatory, but its timing is procedural, and substantial compliance (filing it before assessment proceedings) is sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was bad in law as it was initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The order of the CIT(A) quashing the reassessment was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the addition for share capital under Section 68 was partly justified, but the quantification needed adjustment. For the "on-money" addition, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4.25 crores, apportioned equally between the two assessees, rejecting the claim that it should be assessed in the year of sale deed registration.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction based on unexplained bank credits but framed the assessment on the disallowance of purchases. This was considered a roving inquiry not connected to the original reasons for reopening.
The Tribunal found that the DRP and AO erred in concluding that the GIS services provided an enduring benefit or enabled the Indian AE to apply embedded technology. It was noted that the AO and DRP did not properly examine the detailed invoices and supporting documentation for the GIS services. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee do not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12(4) of the India-US tax treaty, nor as royalty. The Tribunal also directed verification of TDS credit and a refund issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation for the investors. Regarding Section 56(2)(viib), the Tribunal found that the AO could not disregard the assessee's chosen valuation method (DCF) without demonstrating a fundamentally flawed approach, relying on a Delhi High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the addition for share capital under Section 68 was partly justified, but the quantification needed adjustment. For the "on-money" addition, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4.25 crores, apportioned equally between the two assessees, rejecting the claim that it should be assessed in the year of sale deed registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, finding the assessee's reason of awaiting rectification orders bona fide. Consequently, for all three appeals (AY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22), the matters were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication on merits. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction based on unexplained bank credits but framed the assessment on the disallowance of purchases. This was considered a roving inquiry not connected to the original reasons for reopening.
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission of the certificate under Rule 5 of the VSVS Rules and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed three Revenue appeals due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular 9/2024 and rejected corresponding cross-objections as not pressed. For assessments related to search action (AYs 2007-08 to 2011-12), the tribunal quashed them, holding that additions not based on incriminating material from the assessee's own search were unsustainable, referencing the Supreme Court's *Abhisar Buildwell* decision. For AY 2013-14 (ITA No. 379/Del/2017), a regular assessment, the tribunal upheld the Section 14A disallowance and rejected the assessee's additional ground regarding Section 153D approval.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of the certificate under VSVS Rules and their prayer for withdrawal. Considering these facts, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to Section 14A, amortization of premium, provisions for standard assets, and establishment expenses. However, one ground related to 'Estab-PNB' was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained audited books of accounts with no defects identified by the AO, and the revision of VAT returns was valid. It found that the cash deposits were adequately explained by cash sales and were interlinked with accepted purchases and stock, concluding that the additions were based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, finding the assessee's reason of awaiting rectification orders bona fide. Consequently, for all three appeals (AY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22), the matters were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication on merits. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition for share capital under Section 68 was partly justified, but the quantification needed adjustment. For the "on-money" addition, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4.25 crores, apportioned equally between the two assessees, rejecting the claim that it should be assessed in the year of sale deed registration.
The Tribunal held that the procedure adopted for the special audit suffered from multiple infirmities, including the satisfaction for the audit not being solely recorded by the AO and the extension of time for furnishing the report being granted improperly. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order before completing the assessment vitiated the assessment proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, it was established that this is not a mere procedural irregularity but goes to the root of the validity of reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was not valid as no incriminating documents were found from the assessee's possession. The assessment should have been made under Section 153C, as the relied-upon documents belonged to a third party.
The Tribunal held that the property transfer was a bonafide family settlement, not a taxable transaction. The payment of Rs. 1.20 Cr. was a settlement amount between family members. Therefore, Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee regarding the HDFC Bank account, finding that the cash deposits of Rs. 2,58,000/- were from earlier withdrawals as evidenced by bank records and confirmation, and deleted this addition. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,13,000/- related to the SCB Loan Account due to a lack of explanation and evidence from the assessee regarding the source of those deposits.
The Tribunal held that the procedure adopted for the special audit suffered from multiple infirmities, including the satisfaction for the audit not being solely recorded by the AO and the extension of time for furnishing the report being granted improperly. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the same income cannot be taxed twice. Since the substantive addition was confirmed in the hands of Sh. Ashish Garg, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, finding the assessee's reason of awaiting rectification orders bona fide. Consequently, for all three appeals (AY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22), the matters were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication on merits. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not possess the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, emphasizing that Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act mandate the disposal of appeals on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their submissions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued to the assessee, particularly the notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 28/07/2022, were barred by limitation. It was found that these notices fell outside the time limit stipulated by the amended provisions of Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act and were not saved by the extended periods under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Relying on precedents, the Tribunal quashed all the notices for being time-barred, rendering other grounds of appeal academic.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to Section 14A, amortization of premium, provisions for standard assets, and establishment expenses. However, one ground related to 'Estab-PNB' was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the Checkmate Services judgment on belated PF/ESI payments, remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify if contributions were deposited within the due dates as per respective statutes, considering specific arguments about contractor employees. The issue of TDS credit mismatch was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of TDS certificates and necessary action.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as per the facts presented by the appellant.
The Tribunal observed the assessee's consistent history of declaring agricultural income, accepted by the Revenue in previous years, and its partial substantiation of land and sales. While accepting the revised net agricultural income offered by the assessee as a basis (Rs.18,57,925/-), the Tribunal found Rs.8,00,000/- of the claimed expenditure unsubstantiated and treated it as unexplained income, thus effectively determining the taxable agricultural income as Rs.26,57,925/- (Rs.18,57,925/- + Rs.8,00,000/-).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to Section 14A, amortization of premium, provisions for standard assets, and establishment expenses. However, one ground related to 'Estab-PNB' was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was practically a dismissal for default and a non-speaking order, even though the assessee had been given multiple opportunities. Finding fault on both sides, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was levied costs of Rs. 25,000/- for the recalling of the order, to be paid to the legal aid authority.
The tribunal dismissed three Revenue appeals due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular 9/2024 and rejected corresponding cross-objections as not pressed. For assessments related to search action (AYs 2007-08 to 2011-12), the tribunal quashed them, holding that additions not based on incriminating material from the assessee's own search were unsustainable, referencing the Supreme Court's *Abhisar Buildwell* decision. For AY 2013-14 (ITA No. 379/Del/2017), a regular assessment, the tribunal upheld the Section 14A disallowance and rejected the assessee's additional ground regarding Section 153D approval.