ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were properly explained by the assessee's cash book and business model, which involved frequent cash transactions. The Tribunal found no negative cash balance on any given day, indicating the sources were explained.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were properly explained by the assessee's cash book and business model, which involved frequent cash transactions. The Tribunal found no negative cash balance on any given day, indicating the sources were explained.

The Tribunal ruled that the filing of Form 67 under Rule 128(9) is directory and not mandatory. Since the assessee had subsequently filed Form 67 with the Assessing Officer, the delay was considered a mere procedural irregularity. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the FTC claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found 'some truth' in the assessee's claim of fraudulent filing but noted it requires proper inquiry and investigation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to establish that the return was not filed by him.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is warranted because TDS was duly deducted on the expatriate salaries under Section 192. The issue of whether the payment was FTS or reimbursement became academic in light of the TDS deduction.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is warranted because TDS was duly deducted on the expatriate salaries under Section 192. The issue of whether the payment was FTS or reimbursement became academic in light of the TDS deduction.

The Tribunal is issuing a corrigendum to correct factual inaccuracies in its previous order. The corrected facts will be considered part of the official order, ensuring accuracy in the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the brokerage expenses, finding them to be duly supported by invoices, confirmations, and payments through cheques, and noting the trade practice in real estate. However, it upheld the disallowance of construction/improvement costs due to insufficient evidence regarding cash payments and their source.

The ITAT, with the consent of both the assessee's counsel and the DR, remitted the issue concerning the cash deposits made by partner Dharam Pal Singh back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to conduct a fresh examination and necessary enquiry into the veracity of the assessee's submissions, providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing provisions are applicable even if the expenditure is capitalized, as it impacts future profits. It also found that the valuation report by Cushman & Wakefield was rightly rejected by the TPO due to inappropriate comparables and methods for valuing land.

The Tribunal held that the addition was illegal as the assessment was not framed under the correct provisions of the Act (Section 153C). Furthermore, even on merits, there was no corroborative evidence to prove the payment of Rs. 5 crores.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 in the assessee's own case, held that the UK LLP was entitled to DTAA benefits under Article 4(1). It clarified that the fact of taxability in the residence state (whether at the entity or partner level) determines eligibility for treaty benefits, not the mode of taxability. The Tribunal found the Department's argument against the retrospective application of the DTAA protocol for AY 2014-15 to be incorrect and contrary to judicial precedents.

The ITAT, noting the assessee's request for an opportunity to be heard due to genuine reasons for non-compliance and the Revenue's non-objection, decided to remit the issue back to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the matter afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the matter afresh as per law, ensuring the assessee is provided a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that there was no tangible material before the AO to establish a live link between the information received and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The CCM is a permitted transaction for rectifying errors, and no violation was found by SEBI. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the cash deposit was adequately explained by the assessee's cash book entries, which demonstrated sufficient cash availability. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the dispute related to the appeal had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020.

The Tribunal held that the addendum to the royalty agreement, though entered into later, clarified the original intention that royalty was payable on all sales revenues, including those from third-party customers of TP USA. The DRP and TPO erred in their interpretation of the agreements and the addendum.

The Tribunal held that the addendum to the royalty agreement, though entered into later, clarified the original intention that royalty was payable on all sales revenues, including those from third-party customers of TP USA. The DRP and TPO erred in their interpretation of the agreements and the addendum.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the assessee did not controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. Furthermore, the assessee had passed away and no legal heirs came forward to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the ITAT found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash balance plausible, supported by bank withdrawals and significant past income, and directed the deletion of the addition. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the entire jewellery was adequately explained by combining the allowances under CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (1550 grams) and submitted purchase bills (681.483 grams), which collectively exceeded the total jewellery found, thus directing the deletion of the unexplained jewellery addition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it constituted a mere change of opinion. It found that all material facts were already on record and considered during the original assessment under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment without any fresh tangible material, making a bald allegation of failure to disclose facts. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 was deemed bad in law, and the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte and without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, thus violating the principle of natural justice and denying the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering all facts and circumstances, restored the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter in accordance with law after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that since the property was jointly purchased, the assessee was only responsible for explaining her 50% share of investment, i.e., Rs. 62.50 lakhs. It was undisputed that a Rs. 90 lakh housing loan was taken from PNB Housing Finance and the bank directly issued drafts to the seller, which the Assessing Officer failed to properly investigate. Given the documentary evidence and the assessee's limited liability, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire addition.

The Tribunal, referring to its decision in the assessee's own case (ITA No.917/Del/2022), held that for AY 2018-19, there was no mandatory requirement under Section 139(1) of the Act to file the return within the due date to claim the deduction under Section 10AA, as the relevant amendment mandating this condition came into effect from 01.04.2024. Consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's blending activity qualified as manufacturing for the purpose of investment allowance and additional depreciation. The Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence regarding the investment threshold and asset installation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) sustained the addition without adequately examining the nature of 'other loans and advances'. It restored the quantum additions (u/s 68, trade payable, other expenses) to the Assessing Officer for *de novo* verification and fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside and remitted to the AO to be decided along with the fresh quantum assessment.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited Vs. CIT, affirmed that employee contributions to PF and ESI must be deposited by the statutory due dates to be allowed as a deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance.

The tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances and with no objection from the Revenue, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash balance plausible, supported by bank withdrawals and significant past income, and directed the deletion of the addition. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the entire jewellery was adequately explained by combining the allowances under CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (1550 grams) and submitted purchase bills (681.483 grams), which collectively exceeded the total jewellery found, thus directing the deletion of the unexplained jewellery addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions for A.Y. 2016-17, noting the significant surrendered amount and lack of specific defects by the AO. It allowed telescoping of the surrendered amount against the unexplained cash payments. For A.Y. 2017-18, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to its non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating Section 153C proceedings was bad in law, as it was recorded prematurely (before transfer of assessee's records) and without proper application of mind. The alleged incriminating MOU was considered legally unenforceable due to lack of signatures and specific payment details, and the AO failed to conduct independent inquiry or establish a proper nexus with the assessee's undisclosed income. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid, vitiating the entire assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited Vs. CIT, affirmed that employee contributions to PF and ESI must be deposited by the statutory due dates to be allowed as a deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) sustained the addition without adequately examining the nature of 'other loans and advances'. It restored the quantum additions (u/s 68, trade payable, other expenses) to the Assessing Officer for *de novo* verification and fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside and remitted to the AO to be decided along with the fresh quantum assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions for A.Y. 2016-17, noting the significant surrendered amount and lack of specific defects by the AO. It allowed telescoping of the surrendered amount against the unexplained cash payments. For A.Y. 2017-18, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to its non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the agreement between the assessee and Mother Dairy, which clearly defined the assessee's role as a transporter and not a distributor. The addition was made without adequately examining the contractual terms.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was based on incorrect facts, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessment order passed was declared invalid.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the existence of tangible material and a live link between that material and the formation of belief that income has escaped assessment is a prerequisite for reopening an assessment under section 147, even if the original assessment was processed under section 143(1). Reopening based solely on the reappraisal of already available information (Form 26AS) without fresh tangible material is invalid. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) also fails.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the existence of tangible material and a live link between that material and the formation of belief that income has escaped assessment is a prerequisite for reopening an assessment under section 147, even if the original assessment was processed under section 143(1). Reopening based solely on the reappraisal of already available information (Form 26AS) without fresh tangible material is invalid. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) also fails.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee did not controvert the CIT(A)'s findings before the Tribunal and had consistently failed to appear or cooperate throughout the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the AO regarding unexplained share capital/premium and commission.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on notional figures prepared for strategic purposes and investor representation, not actual financial implications. The employee statements were also considered unreliable due to alleged pressure and subsequent retraction.

The Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 1 crore was based solely on the statement under Section 132(4) without any corroborative material or assets. It noted that the collective disclosures by the assessee and family members totaled close to the initial estimated surrender. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was baseless and deleted it.

The Tribunal observed that the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars related to capital gain from the sale of agricultural land. It found no deliberate act of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income, as the assessee claimed the exemption under a bona fide belief. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on notional figures prepared for strategic purposes and investor representation, not actual financial implications. The employee statements were also considered unreliable due to alleged pressure and subsequent retraction.

The ITAT noted that identical issues in the assessee's own case for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 were previously decided in his favor by a common order. Finding the facts and circumstances to be identical and unchallenged by the Revenue, the Tribunal followed its binding precedent and directed the AO to delete the disallowance made under Section 14A.

The Tribunal, relying on its earlier decisions, held that the filing of Form-67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not a mandatory one. It ruled that a delay in filing Form-67 does not extinguish the substantive right to claim foreign tax credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify and decide the assessee's FTC claim on merits after accepting the late-filed Form-67.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on notional figures prepared for strategic purposes and investor representation, not actual financial implications. The employee statements were also considered unreliable due to alleged pressure and subsequent retraction.

The Tribunal found the interest income was duly offered to tax, thus no addition was warranted for it. Regarding the Dubai property addition, lacking sufficient details from both parties, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to present supporting documents.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed she was never confronted regarding the source of the jewellery and the CIT(A) improperly dismissed evidence. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO, directing the assessee to provide necessary details of the jewellery's source and the AO to decide the case after providing an opportunity of being heard.