ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2024

DREAMTECH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD.,DELHI vs DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 90/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make independent inquiries to disprove the assessee's evidence regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 for AY 2012-13 was deleted.

DREAMTECH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 91/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make independent inquiries to disprove the assessee's evidence regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 for AY 2012-13 was deleted.

MOVEMENT AGAINST DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE DISORDERS,NEW DELHI vs CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

ITA 9397/DEL/2019[2019-20]Status: Heard16 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The tribunal ruled that at the registration stage, the CIT(Exemption) should primarily examine if the objectives are charitable and the application is procedurally correct, not delve into the genuineness or application of income. It reiterated that imparting awareness about diseases is charitable. The tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) had not doubted the charitable nature of the objectives, only the activities.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs GRASS VALLEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

ITA 2796/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in proper reasoning. It noted that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to discharge their duties properly, and the CIT(A) wrongly shifted the onus to the AO without the assessee providing basic documentation.

SEEMA GUPTA,MEERUT vs ITO, WARD 2(5), MEERUT

ITA 2822/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held the reopening was bad in law because the AO failed to independently examine the sale deed, which clearly showed six co-sharers, indicating non-application of mind. Relying on a similar case for a co-sharer, the Tribunal concluded the reopening was mechanical and set it aside. Consequently, the addition on merits and the penalty imposed were quashed.

SEEMA GUPTA,MEERUT vs ITO, WARD-2(5), MEERUT

ITA 2823/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held the reopening was bad in law because the AO failed to independently examine the sale deed, which clearly showed six co-sharers, indicating non-application of mind. Relying on a similar case for a co-sharer, the Tribunal concluded the reopening was mechanical and set it aside. Consequently, the addition on merits and the penalty imposed were quashed.

SHIV KUMAR AND SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2853/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's repeated failure to respond to notices but, for the ends of justice, granted one more opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). This opportunity is subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- into the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 45 days and submitting proof thereof. The issue on merits is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

BRAHM DUTT SUVEDI,MEERUT vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

ITA 2975/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal found that the NFAC sent notices to the email address, contrary to the assessee's explicit instructions in Form No. 35. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT (Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs RITESH MITTAL, DELHI

ITA 1331/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had verified each image and explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found no contradictory documents from the Revenue to warrant interference.

TEJPAL,FARIDABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

ITA 3172/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: Heard15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to verify the validity of the ITR filed by the assessee from the department's records. Upon verification, the CIT(A) is to admit the appeal and adjudicate the grounds after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT GROUP (UK) LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)- 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3177/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the receipts were not attributable to the Indian PE and were to be treated as FTS. This decision followed previous judgments of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years with similar facts.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 880/DEL/2023[2015-16, 26Q,Q3]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 879/DEL/2023[2015-16 26Q Q2]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 878/DEL/2023[2015-16 24Q,Q4]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 877/DEL/2023[2015-16 24Q,Q1]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

SHRI PRAVEEN GUPTA,GURGAON vs ACIT, MEERUT

ITA 3189/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions. The assessee also could not controvert the findings regarding the plot booking loss.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 949/DEL/2023[2015-16 (26Q,Q1)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

MST MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), GURGAON

ITA 1983/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: Heard15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22Allowed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the CBDT instructions for filing ITR-6, which explicitly state that forms like 10IB are required to be filed only in the first year when the concessional rate of taxation is initially opted for. Based on these clear instructions, the Tribunal found the lower authorities' orders to be without merit and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the 25% tax rate as claimed by the assessee under section 115BA.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 876/DEL/2023[2014-15, 26Q,Q4]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

POWER AND ENERGY CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO ,WARD-19(1), DELHI

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. The FTC is a vested right under the DTAA and cannot be denied for belatedly filing the form.

GE ENERGY PARTS INC,WILDWOOD PARKWAY ATLANTA GA US vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

ITA 3199/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the facts of the present case were identical to a previous assessment year where the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the departmental authorities failed to controvert the assessee's submissions and evidence showing no PE in India.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1), NEW DELHI

ITA 875/DEL/2023[2014-15 26Q,Q3]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

RAJESH SALUJA ,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 5190/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed capital for acquiring a property cannot be treated as part of the cost of acquisition, even with indexation. The cost of the asset and the cost of raising funds are distinct transactions.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 950/DEL/2023[2015-16 (24Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 874/DEL/2023[2014-15 24-Q,Q4]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1 (1), NEW DELHI

ITA 873/DEL/2023[2014-15, 24-Q,Q1]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

RAJAN GUPTA,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-35(1), DELHI

ITA 3309/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained sufficient cash balance in the books, supported by the cash book and audited accounts, to justify the deposit. A similar deposit made in July 2016 was previously accepted by the revenue. The Tribunal noted the revenue failed to prove that the cash withdrawals were utilized for other purposes, and there was no negative cash balance on any given day. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was not warranted.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 846/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 947/DEL/2023[2014-15 (26Q,Q1)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMTED,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 951/DEL/2023[2015-16 (24Q,Q3)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

MADHULIKA TIWARI,DELHI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI

ITA 600/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: Heard15 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal found that Locker No. 482 was jointly held by the assessee and her non-resident daughter, who resides in the USA and had explicitly claimed ownership of the locker's contents via a letter. Considering it reasonable for a non-resident daughter to keep jewelry with her mother and noting the lack of further inquiry by the lower authorities, the Tribunal applied the Principle of Probability. It concluded that the daughter's ownership of the jewelry could not be ruled out and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,72,209/-.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 948/DEL/2023[2014-15 (26Q,Q2)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 946/DEL/2023[2014-15 (24Q,Q1)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 945/DEL/2023[2013-14 (26Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

ITA 944/DEL/2023[2013-14 (24Q,Q4)]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

ATN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 881/DEL/2023[2015-16 26Q,Q4]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed ITA No.878/Del/2023, quashing the CIT(A)'s order, stating that late fees under section 234E cannot be levied for periods before 01.06.2015, as section 200A(1)(c) was introduced from that date. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal restored them to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing on the issue of limitation and to apply the legal principles cited.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs YASHU MITTAL, NEW DELHI

ITA 1357/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The ITAT affirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, stating that the CIT(A) had thoroughly verified the assessee's reconciliation statement and bank statements of M/s Parmanand and Sons Food Products Pvt. Ltd., finding all entries totaling Rs. 8,20,29,716/- to be matching. Consequently, the ITAT found no reason to interfere with the conclusion that the added amount of Rs. 2,70,75,540/- was also verifiable.

ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

ITA 6370/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: Heard15 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The tribunal held that no "work" was carried out by the assessee for the minimum guarantee expense, as it was merely a compensatory payment for a shortfall in room occupancy, not a payment for services under a contract. Therefore, the provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the said expense. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned addition.

ANJALI PURI,NEW DELHI vs DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAX 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 2107/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled both conditions under Article 15 of the India-Ireland DTAA (stay in India less than 183 days and employment exercised outside India). The salary was borne by BA PLC, Ireland, and the services were rendered in Ireland, not India. Therefore, the salary income is exempt from tax in India under the DTAA and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

SANJAY KUMAR,IRELAND vs ACIT, INT.TAXATION, GURGAON

ITA 1479/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The tribunal held that since the assessee is a non-resident and rendered all services outside India, the salary/allowances received cannot be subject to tax in India. The income under the head "Salaries" is taxable in India only if the services are rendered in India, as per Sections 5, 9, and 15 of the Income Tax Act.

DEEPTTI ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs ITO WARD-7 (1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1570/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amount recorded via journal entry for a commercial transaction without actual fund flow from the lender to the assessee could not be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). For the share application money, it was held that the assessee provided adequate evidence, and the addition based on mere suspicion without further inquiry by the revenue authorities was unwarranted.

JASPREET KAUR PUNIHANI ,DELHI vs DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -19,NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1744/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal agreed to treat the 14-member joint family as a single unit for explaining the jewellery. It found that the aggregate jewellery of 14,952 grams gold and 1,676 carats diamonds was sufficiently explained by purchase bills, CBDT Instruction No. 1916, and gifts. The Tribunal further accepted the explanation of converting excess diamonds to gold jewellery, concluding that no addition under section 69A was warranted.

GURPREET KAUR PUNIHANI,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

ITA 1747/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal agreed to treat the 14-member joint family as a single unit for explaining the jewellery. It found that the aggregate jewellery of 14,952 grams gold and 1,676 carats diamonds was sufficiently explained by purchase bills, CBDT Instruction No. 1916, and gifts. The Tribunal further accepted the explanation of converting excess diamonds to gold jewellery, concluding that no addition under section 69A was warranted.

AMARJEET SINGH PUNIHANI,DELHI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19,NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1749/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal agreed to treat the 14-member joint family as a single unit for explaining the jewellery. It found that the aggregate jewellery of 14,952 grams gold and 1,676 carats diamonds was sufficiently explained by purchase bills, CBDT Instruction No. 1916, and gifts. The Tribunal further accepted the explanation of converting excess diamonds to gold jewellery, concluding that no addition under section 69A was warranted.

LEAPFROG,GULMOHAR PARK vs ITO,WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1774/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and cryptic, and the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity for a virtual hearing. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with directions to pass a fresh speaking order after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

BAWNIET KAUR PUNIHANI,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

ITA 1925/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal agreed to treat the 14-member joint family as a single unit for explaining the jewellery. It found that the aggregate jewellery of 14,952 grams gold and 1,676 carats diamonds was sufficiently explained by purchase bills, CBDT Instruction No. 1916, and gifts. The Tribunal further accepted the explanation of converting excess diamonds to gold jewellery, concluding that no addition under section 69A was warranted.

RAJDHANI FLORA & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO,WARD 21(1), DELHI

ITA 1968/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal, noting that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and agreeing with the Senior DR's suggestion, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals de novo on merits after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case, in the interest of justice and fair play.

RAJDHANI FLORA & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ITO, WARD-21(1), DELHI

ITA 1969/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal, noting that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and agreeing with the Senior DR's suggestion, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals de novo on merits after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case, in the interest of justice and fair play.

RAJDHANI FLORA & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs ITO WARD-21(1), DELHI

ITA 1970/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal, noting that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeals on merits and agreeing with the Senior DR's suggestion, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals de novo on merits after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case, in the interest of justice and fair play.

PRAMOD KUMAR GARG,NEW DELHI vs ITO, WARD -2(3)(5), HAPUR

ITA 2018/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the transaction was between father and son, both operating independent businesses, and its genuineness was not doubted. It noted that the transaction was to meet business exigency. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had established a reasonable cause for accepting the impugned cash transaction. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271D was not exigible.