ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) had overlooked the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication by the Ld.CIT(A) to properly consider the assessee's contentions regarding reasonable cause for non-compliance, which could lead to the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the issues regarding delayed deposit of employee contributions (PF/ESI), taxability of grants in aid, and the non-allowance of DDT credit with interest under section 115P, back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination and verification of factual aspects. Specific reasons for delays in some PF/ESI deposits were noted, requiring re-examination. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating a remand.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on LTC payments, even if they involved foreign travel, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The exemption under Section 10(5) is for travel within India.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on LTC payments, even if they involved foreign travel, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The exemption under Section 10(5) is for travel within India.

The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material was found during the search and no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of the search. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Build Well, the Tribunal ruled that additions made on account of cash deposits without incriminating material should be deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's business as wholesale trading of raw meat and animal waste, where individual cash purchases were below Rs. 20,000 and vendors often lacked bank accounts. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Gee Square Exports, the Tribunal held that CBDT circulars cannot impose additional conditions not stipulated in the Act or Rules. Consequently, the cash purchases were found to be fully covered under Rule 6DD(e)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, and the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on LTC payments, even if they involved foreign travel, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The exemption under Section 10(5) is for travel within India.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposit of Rs. 15,73,000/-, consisting of Rs. 1,23,000/- from personal savings and Rs. 14,50,000/- from prior withdrawals between 27.10.2016 and 08.11.2016, was adequately explained and supported by bank statements and a bank certificate. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that no addition under section 69A was warranted for any portion of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision. It held that rental income should be treated as income from house property, citing consistency in past assessments and relevant Supreme Court judgments. It also upheld the deletion of interest expense disallowance, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and did not divert interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes. Both grounds of appeal by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the capital gain on sale of shares of EHIRC Ltd. was not assessable in the year under appeal as it was a subject of dispute before the High Court. It also held that the disallowance of long-term capital loss on sale of shares of Esconet Services Ltd. and Escosoft Technologies Ltd. was incorrect, and that prior period expenses and gifts were allowable as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on LTC payments, even if they involved foreign travel, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The exemption under Section 10(5) is for travel within India.

The Tribunal held that the capital gain on sale of shares of EHIRC Ltd. was not assessable in the year under appeal as it was a subject of dispute before the High Court. It also held that the disallowance of long-term capital loss on sale of shares of Esconet Services Ltd. and Escosoft Technologies Ltd. was incorrect, and that prior period expenses and gifts were allowable as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on LTC payments, even if they involved foreign travel, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The exemption under Section 10(5) is for travel within India.

The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material was found during the search and no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of the search. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Build Well, the Tribunal ruled that additions made on account of cash deposits without incriminating material should be deleted.

The Tribunal, after careful consideration, permitted the Revenue to withdraw the present appeal (ITA No.1291/Del/2020). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on LTC payments, even if they involved foreign travel, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The exemption under Section 10(5) is for travel within India.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on LTC payments, even if they involved foreign travel, as per the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The exemption under Section 10(5) is for travel within India.

The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on an un-confronted statement from the Investigation Wing without providing a copy to the assessee or allowing cross-examination. The CIT(A) also failed to obtain a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, dismissing grounds related to additions on cash sales and other expenses. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed entirely, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of disallowances and additions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 14A was not justified as no exempt income was earned during the year, relying on settled legal position and a previous tribunal order for the assessee. Regarding the lease equalization reserve, the Tribunal, citing High Court judgments, ruled that such charges are not a reserve or provision for unascertained liability and thus cannot be added back for computing book profits under section 115JB.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, dismissing grounds related to additions on cash sales and other expenses. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed entirely, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of disallowances and additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have accepted the assessee's submissions regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and manual submission of forms. It directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to the assessee upon furnishing the requisite documents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted due diligence and adopted a plausible view by accepting the assessee's valuation method. The PCIT's order was deemed erroneous as it was based on a different opinion without establishing the AO's view as unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted inquiries and accepted a plausible view that the redemption of unit-linked insurance was amenable to capital gains tax under Section 45. Since the AO's order was based on a plausible view and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's revisional order and upheld the original assessment.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in making the addition under Section 68. Since the assessee's books of accounts were accepted, stock was not disputed, and purchases were considered genuine, treating cash sales as bogus without disturbing the book results or providing adverse material on purchases and stock was not justified. The Tribunal concluded that the source of cash deposits, arising from accepted sales, should have been treated as explained.

The Tribunal held that the payments were for the supply of standardized software, not for the use of copyright or imparting industrial/commercial/scientific experience. Therefore, the income was business income and not royalty, thus not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 3 lakhs was offered by the Director in his individual capacity during the survey and, considering other major additions were deleted, it cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee company. Consequently, the levy of penalty in the hands of the company was found to be without merit.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that no disallowance under section 14A is required when dividend income is derived from shares held as stock-in-trade, in accordance with the Supreme Court's binding judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd.

The Tribunal ruled that the Audit Report was timely prepared and uploaded, and the issue was a technical glitch, not a substantive failure. Citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT, the Tribunal emphasized that 'mistake' under Section 154 has a broad meaning and that eligible deductions should not be disallowed on mere technicalities. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 3,34,32,351/-.

The counsel's request for dropping the appeal was based on a Supreme Court decision (Union of India vs Exide Industries) which held that provision for leave encashment should be allowed on an actual basis. Noting the contents of this application, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the alleged incriminating material in the satisfaction note (a trust deed) did not belong to the assessee nor disclosed any undisclosed income related to her. Consequently, all additions made in the assessment order were deleted as they were not linked to any incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation, as per Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A. However, it directed re-computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on investments yielding exempt income during the year. The issue of depreciation on leasehold property was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd, held that for completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A. Since no such material was found for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18, the additions made were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the shares received by the assessee in lieu of granting rights to use its capital assets constituted revenue income. The disallowance of Rs. 144.49 crore was upheld as it represented income earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A. However, it directed re-computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on investments yielding exempt income during the year. The issue of depreciation on leasehold property was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since no actual cash was found during the search and the assessee company had already surrendered Rs. 13.45 Crores of income, it was logical to presume that the expenses of Rs. 7.16 Crores noted in the loose sheets were met out of the income surrendered by the assessee company, as no other evidence of investment was found. Thus, the expenses were directed to be considered against the surrendered income of the company.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd, held that for completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A. Since no such material was found for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18, the additions made were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal, relying on various precedents from its Co-ordinate Benches, found that there was a reasonable and bonafide cause for the non-deduction of TDS. It noted that the payments were effectively made to the DTCP, a government authority, on behalf of HUDA, and DTCP had clarified that no TDS was required for EDC payments. The Tribunal concluded that no contumacious conduct was attributable to the assessee and thus, no penalty under Section 271C was leviable.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was restored to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that once a Keyman Insurance Policy is assigned by the employer to the employee, its character changes to that of an ordinary life insurance policy. Consequently, the maturity proceeds received by the individual assessee are exempt from tax under Section 10(10D) of the Act, and the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 28(vi) was not justified, relying on binding precedents.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the appellate order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3,20,60,409/-, finding that this amount represented refunds as per the seized document and the net disclosed income was correct. Regarding the adhoc addition of Rs. 20 lakhs for unverifiable expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal by restricting the addition to Rs. 1 lakh, acknowledging that some expenses were supported by self-generated vouchers.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the appellate order.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the appellate order.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue regarding delayed PF/ESIC deposits is settled by the Supreme Court. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the exact due dates specified in the PF Act and then decide the matter after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was restored to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowed advertisement and brokerage expenses were revenue expenditures incurred for marketing and selling flats, directly related to the assessee's business. Relying on Delhi High Court precedents, it found the AO's reason for disallowance invalid and directed the AO to delete these additions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim for TDS credit from Form 26AS and provide appropriate relief.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A. However, it directed re-computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on investments yielding exempt income during the year. The issue of depreciation on leasehold property was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the contents of the application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the appellate order.