ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied by disregarding the plea of small savings and that the assessee's conduct was not contumacious. Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, finding that the AO's addition was based on surmise and conjecture. The Tribunal noted that the purchases were accepted as genuine in the assessee's own case by a previous ITAT order.

The Tribunal held that once it is proven that the expenditure was reflected in the company's books and sourced from its bank funds, it cannot be added as unexplained expenditure in the hands of the assessee. The reclassification by CIT(A) as perquisite under section 17(2) without proper enhancement notice was also deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that once it is proven that the expenditure was reflected in the company's books and sourced from its bank funds, it cannot be added as unexplained expenditure in the hands of the assessee. The reclassification by CIT(A) as perquisite under section 17(2) without proper enhancement notice was also deemed invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, finding that the AO's addition was based on surmise and conjecture. The Tribunal noted that the purchases were accepted as genuine in the assessee's own case by a previous ITAT order.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues concerning the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act have been adjudicated on merits by this Tribunal in previous years. The Tribunal found no reason to take a divergent stand and held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, finding that the AO's addition was based on surmise and conjecture. The Tribunal noted that the purchases were accepted as genuine in the assessee's own case by a previous ITAT order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the share application money and that the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) were not attracted for the supervisory and risk management charges. The payment to Sh. Harpreet Singh Jolly and consultation charges were also allowed.

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 4 lacs to the assessee's income as an undisclosed cash payment. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that they were not represented before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, finding that the AO's addition was based on surmise and conjecture. The Tribunal noted that the purchases were accepted as genuine in the assessee's own case by a previous ITAT order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO's reasons for reopening were based on factually incorrect assumptions, specifically that the assessee had not filed a return and was a non-PAN case. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment on this ground.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) applies to loans and advances given simpliciter, not to transactions carried out in the ordinary course of business. Advances made for business purposes, where the business itself benefits, are not considered deemed dividends.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on the aircraft was incorrect as evidence showed it was put to use. It also restored issues related to deferred revenue expenditure, prior period expenses, and repair expenses to the lower authorities for fresh consideration with proper evidence. The disallowance of interest on TDS was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. For the first issue, it reaffirmed that interest earned on funds inextricably linked to project setup during construction is a capital receipt reducing project cost, relying on multiple judicial precedents including the Supreme Court. For the second issue, the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making an estimated gross profit addition when the power tariff is CERC-controlled and the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected as defective.

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 4 lacs to the assessee's income as an undisclosed cash payment. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that they were not represented before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the issue concerns the disallowance under section 14A, which was reduced by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the disallowance should be calculated based on investments yielding exempt income. The assessee's AR submitted that similar issues in the assessee's own case were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The AO's disallowance was based on the expenditure not being commensurate with income, not on the absence of business income. The assessee had offered business income and the expenses were revenue in nature and allowable in the year of incurrence.

The Tribunal noted that the issue concerns the disallowance under section 14A, which was reduced by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the disallowance should be calculated based on investments yielding exempt income. The assessee's AR submitted that similar issues in the assessee's own case were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty was levied on an addition that was based on an estimate. It was held that the conduct of the assessee was not contumacious, and therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable in these circumstances.

The Tribunal held that consignment sales should not be included in the trading account. The assessee's practice of showing commission earned on consignment sales in the profit and loss account is in line with accounting standards. The AO had also accepted similar treatment in previous and subsequent years.

The Third Member found that the penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act was applicable as the search was initiated under Section 132 after the specified date. The Third Member disagreed with the Accountant Member's view that the proceedings were under Section 132A, as no requisition was made.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had maintained books of accounts, which were audited, and no discrepancies were pointed out by the AO. The Tribunal also considered the consistent pattern of cash sales and deposits before and after demonetization, and the expansion of hotel facilities, which could explain increased turnover. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the issue raised, along with additional documents, needs to be remitted back to the AO. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's plea that deposits were made within the due dates, with reference to the additional evidence. Assessee should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan fund was correctly routed through the income and expenditure account. For the disaster relief funds, the assessee was merely a facilitator holding funds in a fiduciary capacity, not the owner, thus no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business of real estate and finance had been accepted in prior years, and the interest paid was for business purposes. Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the opening cash balances and realizations from debtors, thus the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were dismissed by a coordinate bench. Since the quantum additions stood confirmed, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty levied by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were dismissed by a coordinate bench. Since the quantum additions stood confirmed, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty levied by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his independent mind while recording reasons to believe for reopening the assessment, relying solely on an investigation report. The reassessment proceedings were found to be based on a 'borrowed satisfaction'.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the final assessment orders bad in law and unsustainable. This is based on statutory provisions and numerous High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the final assessment orders bad in law and unsustainable. This is based on statutory provisions and numerous High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the final assessment orders bad in law and unsustainable. This is based on statutory provisions and numerous High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the final assessment orders bad in law and unsustainable. This is based on statutory provisions and numerous High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) summarily rejected the application without going into the merits. Therefore, the case is remanded back to the CIT(E) to adjudicate the issue on merits by passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) summarily rejected the application without going into the merits. Therefore, the case is remanded back to the CIT(E) to adjudicate the issue on merits by passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's family background, educational qualifications, and the employment status of her husband and father-in-law. It was observed that the search was conducted more than 15 years after the marriage. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding her financial status and the possession of jewellery.

The Tribunal held that while IIT Delhi cannot be treated as the Central Government for the purpose of Rule 3, the AO erred by directly invoking Rule 3 without first determining if there was any 'concession' in rent provided to employees. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were dismissed by a coordinate bench. Since the quantum additions stood confirmed, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty levied by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were dismissed by a coordinate bench. Since the quantum additions stood confirmed, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty levied by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were dismissed by a coordinate bench. Since the quantum additions stood confirmed, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty levied by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were dismissed by a coordinate bench. Since the quantum additions stood confirmed, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty levied by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were dismissed by a coordinate bench. Since the quantum additions stood confirmed, there was no reason to interfere with the penalty levied by the CIT(A). The assessee also sought to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the observation of the CIT(A), that the AO confronting the assessee with material meant the non-supply of reasons would not invalidate proceedings, was not legally sustainable. Relying on the Apex Court decision in GKN Driveshafts Ltd., the Tribunal held that the assessee should have been provided with a copy of the reasons.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities made an ad-hoc disallowance of 30% of expenses without pointing out specific deficiencies in the assessee's books of accounts or financials. While acknowledging that some expenses lacked proper documentation and were paid in cash, the Tribunal considered the nature of the assessee's business and noted that the disallowance was made on an estimation basis. The Tribunal found that this method of disallowance was not sustainable under the law.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had the power to summon directors under Section 131 of the Act and that the denial of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was based on the ground that sufficient opportunities were already provided. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination of documentary evidence and directed the AO to force attendance of directors if deemed necessary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all required documents, including ITRs, bank statements, and confirmations, proving the identity and creditworthiness of the loan parties. The AO had rejected these without establishing their falsity.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, rendering the entire search assessment proceedings illegal and bad in law. Consequently, the assessees' appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the VSVS settlement was not for the order under Section 154. It was held that the interest of justice requires the issue to be remitted back to the CIT(A) to ascertain the correct position regarding the VSVS application.

The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in the unaccounted sales should be taxed, not the entire sale consideration. The source of purchase was not an issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld based on the precedent of CIT vs. President Industries.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erroneously confirmed the disallowance without taking cognizance of the rectification order, which had correctly identified the amount as employer's contribution and thus governed by Section 43B, not Section 36(1)(va). The Tribunal found palpable justification in the assessee's relief.

The Tribunal held that grounds 1 and 2 were general and dismissed them. Ground 3 was dismissed following the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. regarding delayed deposit of PF/ESI. Ground 4 was partly allowed for statistical purposes with a direction to the CIT(A) to consider it afresh. Ground 5 was also partly allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.