ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in land should be adjusted to the extent of cash withdrawn from the assessee's bank account, as she demonstrated capacity to make payments. For other additions, it was held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not make additions in unabated assessment proceedings under Section 153A.

The Tribunal found that Shri Bhim Sen Grover had sufficient funds, and the loan was received and repaid through banking channels, establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. Citing the principle from *CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel*, the Tribunal reiterated that the assessee is not required to prove the source of the loan for the creditor, and suspicion cannot replace evidence. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in land should be adjusted to the extent of cash withdrawn from the assessee's bank account, as she demonstrated capacity to make payments. For other additions, it was held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not make additions in unabated assessment proceedings under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in land should be adjusted to the extent of cash withdrawn from the assessee's bank account, as she demonstrated capacity to make payments. For other additions, it was held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not make additions in unabated assessment proceedings under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not giving a set-off for cash withdrawals and matured fixed deposits against the cash deposits. The AO failed to establish that the withdrawn funds were utilized for other purposes, and therefore, the impugned addition was deleted.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., held that an assessment completed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) is an unabated assessment and cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263 without incriminating material. It was further held that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence, and the assessee had discharged the onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for rejecting the assessee's suo moto disallowance under Section 14A, thus deleting the additional disallowance. It further ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted when computing book profits under Section 115JB, relying on a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in land should be adjusted to the extent of cash withdrawn from the assessee's bank account, as she demonstrated capacity to make payments. For other additions, it was held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not make additions in unabated assessment proceedings under Section 153A.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as 'withdrawn' by the order pronounced in open court.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in land should be adjusted to the extent of cash withdrawn from the assessee's bank account, as she demonstrated capacity to make payments. For other additions, it was held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not make additions in unabated assessment proceedings under Section 153A.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that no incriminating material was brought on record concerning the share capital or loans. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly applied settled legal propositions, and the DR failed to demonstrate any factual or evidential error.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., held that an assessment completed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) is an unabated assessment and cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263 without incriminating material. It was further held that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence, and the assessee had discharged the onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, without addressing the merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted the non-appearance of the assessee's legal heirs and the complete lack of evidence or submissions to substantiate the assessee's claims or challenge the additions by the lower authorities. Finding no reason to interfere with the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the legal heirs to file an application for recalling the order if desired.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments u/s 147 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 was bad in law. It allowed the disallowance of interest expense, provisions for bad and doubtful advances/debts, and write-offs of trade debtors and stock in favor of the assessee, primarily on a write-off basis. However, the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI for AY 2015-16 was decided against the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for rejecting the assessee's suo moto disallowance under Section 14A, thus deleting the additional disallowance. It further ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted when computing book profits under Section 115JB, relying on a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that losses on forward foreign exchange contracts, incurred for hedging business transactions, are allowable as business expenditure and not speculative. M2M losses, when accounted for under mercantile system and related to business, are also considered crystallized business losses.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to satisfy the requirements for 80G approval under the Income Tax Act and Rule 11AA. The Tribunal noted that no material or submission was brought forth to contradict the CIT(E)'s findings, and the assessee's activities were not in line with its stated aims and objects, despite having 12AA registration.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments u/s 147 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 was bad in law. It allowed the disallowance of interest expense, provisions for bad and doubtful advances/debts, and write-offs of trade debtors and stock in favor of the assessee, primarily on a write-off basis. However, the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI for AY 2015-16 was decided against the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments u/s 147 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 was bad in law. It allowed the disallowance of interest expense, provisions for bad and doubtful advances/debts, and write-offs of trade debtors and stock in favor of the assessee, primarily on a write-off basis. However, the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI for AY 2015-16 was decided against the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments u/s 147 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 was bad in law. It allowed the disallowance of interest expense, provisions for bad and doubtful advances/debts, and write-offs of trade debtors and stock in favor of the assessee, primarily on a write-off basis. However, the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI for AY 2015-16 was decided against the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments u/s 147 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 was bad in law. It allowed the disallowance of interest expense, provisions for bad and doubtful advances/debts, and write-offs of trade debtors and stock in favor of the assessee, primarily on a write-off basis. However, the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI for AY 2015-16 was decided against the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that no incriminating material was brought on record concerning the share capital or loans. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly applied settled legal propositions, and the DR failed to demonstrate any factual or evidential error.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merits and without considering the assessee's adjournment request. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, concluding that the property in question was commercial and not residential, thus disallowing the deduction under Section 54F.

The ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-prosecution, without recording findings on the grounds raised. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, ensuring the assessee is provided an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bharti Cellular Limited and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Vodafone Idea Limited, held that the assessee is not obligated to deduct tax at source on the income component from sales of prepaid coupons or starter-kits by distributors. Consequently, Section 194H is not applicable to these transactions, and the prior orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed some donor confirmations, and the remaining donors could not confirm due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments u/s 147 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 was bad in law. It allowed the disallowance of interest expense, provisions for bad and doubtful advances/debts, and write-offs of trade debtors and stock in favor of the assessee, primarily on a write-off basis. However, the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI for AY 2015-16 was decided against the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that income from fit-out charges should be assessed as business income. This decision was consistent with the Tribunal's earlier order for AY 2011-12, which found that separate rent and fit-out agreements indicated a business purpose, and all relevant facts were disclosed by the assessee.

The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A), ruling that there was no reason to interfere with the deletion of the addition. The tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for cash sales, stock availability, and purchases made through banking channels before demonetization, establishing the genuineness of the transactions. The AO had not disputed the availability of stock or pointed out specific defects in the submitted details.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of salary paid to partners, finding that the partnership deed authorized it as per Section 40(b)(v) and the assessee had already added it back to income. For electricity expenses, Rs. 3,32,903/- was allowed based on a rent agreement, but Rs. 75,585/- was sustained due to lack of evidence. The ad-hoc disallowance of staff salary was upheld due to the absence of proper bills, vouchers, or salary slips for cash payments.

The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the actual cash payment treated as unexplained investment. Any addition made in excess of the cash payments was to be deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that interest earned from nationalized and other private banks on unutilized funds is taxable under section 56 and not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal clarified that while the Ld. CIT(A) had directed allowing deduction for interest from co-operative banks and societies, this finding for co-operative *banks* might be misplaced based on Supreme Court precedents concerning co-operative *banks* versus co-operative *societies* investing in banks.

The Tribunal held that based on precedents from the Supreme Court (Bharti Cellular) and Delhi High Court (Vodafone Idea), Section 194H of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the facts. The assessee is not obligated to deduct tax at source on the income/profit component from payments received by distributors/franchisees from third parties or on sales of pre-paid coupons/starter-kits to distributors.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed an ex-parte order under Section 263 without affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite notices being issued. To ensure substantial justice and a decision on merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the PCIT for de-novo adjudication, instructing the assessee to cooperate.

The ITAT observed that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 151 was mechanical, as it merely stated 'Yes, I am satisfied' without application of mind. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the 870-day delay, acknowledging the assessee's non-receipt of the order and the Supreme Court's suo-motu cognizance of limitation issues during COVID-19. It found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous since the assessee had not opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground on jurisdiction, ruling that the ITO, Ward-02(3), New Delhi, lacked both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. It found the notice issued under Section 143(2) by the New Delhi ITO to be `non est` in the eyes of law, thereby vitiating the entire assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). The Tribunal relied on CBDT Notification No. 50/2014 and Circular No. 1/11 to support its finding on lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have made independent inquiries or given the assessee adequate opportunity to explain the source of investment. Since the assessment was based on ITS data without effective inquiry, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte despite a valid adjournment request from the assessee. The ITAT deemed the request for *de novo* adjudication fair and reasonable. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and allowed to furnish fresh evidence.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for cash deposits, finding Rs. 20,00,000/- as a gift from his sister and Rs. 19,85,000/- from his sons' agricultural land sale to be duly explained, covering the entire cash deposit of Rs. 37,39,500/-. Regarding cheque deposits of Rs. 14,69,190/-, the tribunal remanded Rs. 9,00,000/- relating to bounced cheques to the AO for verification, while sustaining the remaining Rs. 5,69,190/- due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the provision for customer discounts was a lesser realization of sale price and crystallized during the year, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also held that computer peripherals form part of integrated computer systems eligible for computer depreciation, following High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the provision for customer discounts was a lesser realization of sale price and crystallized during the year, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also held that computer peripherals form part of integrated computer systems eligible for computer depreciation, following High Court decisions.