ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2024

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs PARMANAND AND SONS FOODS PRODUCTS P.LTD, DELHI

ITA 1329/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.

EMAAR MGF LAND LTD.,NEW DELHI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, NEW DELHI

ITA 825/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior approval under Section 153D is mandatory and must involve due consideration, not a mechanical process. Despite repeated opportunities, the Department failed to produce any evidence of such valid approval, leading to the presumption that the assessments were completed without the requisite legal approval under Section 153D.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, NEW DELHI vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 995/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that prior approval under Section 153D is mandatory and must involve due consideration, not a mechanical process. Despite repeated opportunities, the Department failed to produce any evidence of such valid approval, leading to the presumption that the assessments were completed without the requisite legal approval under Section 153D.

ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI vs GROZ ENGINEERING TOOLS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2887/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for royalty payment, commission to non-resident agents, and disallowance under Section 14A, citing previous judgments and the fact that the assessee's own funds exceeded investments without earning dividend income. However, the issue of delayed ESI contribution was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of a recent Supreme Court judgment. The addition for understatement of income due to TDS mismatch was also deleted as the income was declared in the prior year.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD.,FARIDABAD vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 511/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2015-16Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD,FARIDABAD vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 508/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs SATISH, NOIDA

ITA 1646/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), noting that the CIT(A) found that the assessee had furnished the required details and a complete list of creditors. It was also observed that the AO had not conducted any independent inquiry and had not disturbed the assessee's book results, making the estimated addition unsustainable.

MOHAMMAD JUNAID,CHANDAUSI vs ITO WARD 2(5), CHANDAUSI

ITA 1033/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-cooperation and non-bonafide conduct, decided to set aside the assessment appeal (ITA No.2967/Del/2023) to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee a further opportunity of hearing and prevent a miscarriage of justice, with a clear direction that non-cooperation would allow the AO to proceed ex parte. Consequently, the connected penalty appeals (ITA Nos.1032 & 1033/Del/2024) were dismissed as infructuous.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD.,FARIDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 509/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2013-14Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

VAIBHAV SINGHAL,BANGALORE vs ITO WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

ITA 3585/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2018-19Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessee's submissions and, exercising its discretion, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to duly consider the assessee's claim for FTC in light of the submitted documents and decide as per law on the admitted claim, citing the Supreme Court's Goetze (India) Ltd. case.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD,FARIDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 510/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2014-15Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

WORLD OF SHALOM RESTAURANT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

ITA 1123/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) grossly rejected the additional evidence without clear and proper reasons. Consequently, the tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and conduct a de novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is provided a proper opportunity to be heard.

MOHAMMAD JUNAID,CHANDAUSI vs ITO WARD 2(5), CHANDAUSI

ITA 2967/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-cooperation and non-bonafide conduct, decided to set aside the assessment appeal (ITA No.2967/Del/2023) to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee a further opportunity of hearing and prevent a miscarriage of justice, with a clear direction that non-cooperation would allow the AO to proceed ex parte. Consequently, the connected penalty appeals (ITA Nos.1032 & 1033/Del/2024) were dismissed as infructuous.

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI vs SHERIFF FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 3256/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in denying the entire Section 11 exemption to the assessee trust solely because it donated to an unregistered entity. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had allowed similar exemptions in previous and subsequent years, merely disallowing the specific donation to AIMC, and that the AO failed to show how the donation violated the assessee's objects or Section 13.

CHRYSO,FRANCE vs ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2035/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2010-11Remanded

The ITAT, acknowledging the possibility of technical glitches affecting intimation delivery (a matter even before the Supreme Court), granted the assessee a fresh opportunity. The assessee is directed to file a detailed application with an affidavit before the CIT(A) to properly explain the delay, after which the CIT(A) will consider the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

INDER CHAND BAJAJ,DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI

ITA 2871/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the additions were made based on bank statements without any incriminating material found during the search. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in *Abhisar Build Well P. Ltd.*, which prohibits additions to completed assessments without incriminating material found during a search, and noting a similar decision in the assessee's wife's case, the Tribunal deleted the entire addition of Rs. 17,00,000/-.

MOHAMMAD JUNAID,CHANDAUSI vs ITO WARD 2(5), CHANDAUSI

ITA 1032/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-cooperation and non-bonafide conduct, decided to set aside the assessment appeal (ITA No.2967/Del/2023) to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee a further opportunity of hearing and prevent a miscarriage of justice, with a clear direction that non-cooperation would allow the AO to proceed ex parte. Consequently, the connected penalty appeals (ITA Nos.1032 & 1033/Del/2024) were dismissed as infructuous.

SATYAPAL SINGH CHAUHAN,DELHI vs INTOME TAX OFFICER WARD-61(1), DELHI

ITA 935/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal agreed that Section 44ADA was inapplicable for AY 2012-13. However, it held that subjecting the entire professional receipt to tax without allowing for legitimate expenditures was unjustified. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the assessment back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to verify and allow actual expenses. The stay application filed by the assessee became infructuous and was dismissed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI., DELHI vs SANDEEP BAJAJ, DELHI

ITA 2993/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was mechanically granted by the Joint Commissioner without applying his mind, making the reassessment proceedings bad-in-law. Consequently, the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee was decided in their favour.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD.,FARIDABAD vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , FARIDABAD

ITA 515/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2019-20Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD.,FARIDABAD vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 514/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

NEERAJ SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs ITO, WARD-2(5), GHAZIABAD

ITA 841/DEL/2024[10000]Status: Disposed29 May 2024Allowed

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable as it failed to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard and erred in allowing the appeal for statistical purposes under Section 250(4) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment in accordance with law.

TAKENAKA INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON vs JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-25(1), GURGAON

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most appropriate method for computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in this case, following binding precedents. It also found that M/s. Jai Hind Projects Ltd. was an inappropriate comparable due to functional differences.

ANUBHAV KAPOOR,LUCKNOW vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

ITA 2364/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the variation between the sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was less than 10%, so the sale consideration should be taken as Rs. 1.50 crore. It also held that non-compliance with the procedural requirement of depositing unutilized capital gains in a special account before the due date should not deny the deduction under Section 54, especially when the investment was made shortly after the due date.

SHAHEED BISHAN SINGH MEMORIAL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,MANSAROVER GARDEN, NEW DELHI vs ITO, WARD EXEMPTION 2(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 180/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2021-22Remanded

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) had subsequently condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10/10B via an order dated 06.05.2024 under Section 119(2)(b). Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s impugned order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the assessee's appeal on its merits afresh.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD,FARIDABAD vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, FARIDABAD

ITA 512/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

SHREE BANKEY BIHARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 925/DEL/2024[2022-2023]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2022-2023Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had subsequently condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, and the Jurisdictional AO had passed a rectification order under Section 154, allowing the Section 11 exemption and determining nil taxable income. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appeal infructuous and allowed the assessee's claim.

DHARAMVIR SINGH,GURUGRAM vs ITO, WARD 1(5), GURUGRAM

ITA 927/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's illiteracy and the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities. The assessment is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with the direction that the assessee cooperate by furnishing necessary details to verify the source of the cash deposits.

HORIZON GLOBAL LTD,FARIDABAD vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 513/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not taken cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte. Concluding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially since the original assessment orders were under Section 144, the tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

NAMITA TIWARI,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

ITA 2980/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income from salary for AY 2012-13 was less than Rs. 5 lakhs, she was initially exempt from furnishing a return of income under Section 139(1) as per CBDT Notification No. 9 of 2012. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271F for non-furnishing of return of income was not justified, as there was no initial requirement to file, irrespective of subsequent additions during reassessment.

BRETT LEE,AUSTRALIA vs ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 867/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was not validly served on the assessee as it was sent to an incorrect email address and bounced. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 147 was quashed.

DHOOM SINGH SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs ITO, WARD 2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3034/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) arbitrarily rejected the assessee's detailed explanations and documentary evidence regarding the source of cash, including agricultural income, sale of land, and cash kept for medical exigencies, without proper examination. Consequently, finding merit in the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal deleted all the additions confirmed by the CIT(A).

INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 95/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that donations made after March 31, 2020, were allowable due to the extension provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. It also held that TDS credit should be allowed in the same year the corresponding income is offered to tax, irrespective of when it reflects in Form 26AS.

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD., DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

ITA 1582/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search or survey operation, additions made under Section 153A to completed assessments are not sustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the entire re-assessment proceeding initiated against the assessee was vitiated and liable to be quashed.

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ICOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

ITA 1580/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search or survey operation, additions made under Section 153A to completed assessments are not sustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the entire re-assessment proceeding initiated against the assessee was vitiated and liable to be quashed.

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD., DELHI vs DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

ITA 1581/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search or survey operation, additions made under Section 153A to completed assessments are not sustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the entire re-assessment proceeding initiated against the assessee was vitiated and liable to be quashed.

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

ITA 1579/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search or survey operation, additions made under Section 153A to completed assessments are not sustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the entire re-assessment proceeding initiated against the assessee was vitiated and liable to be quashed.

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

ITA 3013/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 1997-98Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify the exact charge of default (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the subsequent penalty proceedings were unsustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was affirmed.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI vs ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 2877/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 50 lakhs. In light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which established a monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal, and its clarification that it applies to pending appeals, the Revenue's appeal was found not maintainable and consequently dismissed.

ADARSH PARAMEDICAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION,BHIWANI vs CIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 2836/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2023-24Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument for a harmonious interpretation of Section 80G(5), noting the welfare nature of the legislation and relevant CBDT Circulars. It highlighted CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, which extended the due date for filing Form 10A/10AB to 30.06.2024, aiming to mitigate hardships and anomalies. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee's application under Form 10AB should be treated as filed within the prescribed time and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for a de novo consideration on merits.

ITO, WARD-52(2), NEW DELHI vs GAURAV KHULLAR, NEW DELHI

ITA 7752/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2010-11Dismissed

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment proceedings, finding that the reopening was based on an incorrect fact regarding the non-filing of the return, which was readily available in the ITD database. It affirmed that reassessment initiated without proper application of mind or on an erroneous assumption of facts, especially when the correct facts were available, is not sustainable. Thus, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

AJAY SINGH CHHABBRA,RAMPUR UTTAR PRADESH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAMPUR

ITA 904/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2017-18

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

ITA 6219/DEL/2017[1998-99]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 1998-99Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty could not be levied, and the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was affirmed.

SUNITA TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs ITO WARD 2(2)(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3775/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence and the submitted documents. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

BHIM SAIN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3232/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the original assessment had attained finality at Rs.8,11,900/-. The AO failed to provide justification for computing income under section 147 at a higher amount, as the reassessed income was based on the original assessment, which had already been reduced. Given that the CIT(A) decided the issue of reopening ex-parte, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunities of being heard.

RAJESH GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs DCIT CC-14, NEW DELHI

ITA 331/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was vitiated as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked application of mind by the AO. The assessee had provided all necessary details during the original assessment.

VARDHMAN BUILDTECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs JT.CIT, RANGE-78, NEW DELHI

ITA 102/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that it was undergoing a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under NCLT, which explained its inability to attend prior notices. Considering this, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity of being heard and pass a fresh order.

SUDHA KAPOOR,HARYANA vs ITO, WARD-2(4), FARIDABAD

ITA 150/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claims regarding the Syndicate Bank account being her son's business account and not operated by her during the relevant period required verification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after proper verification of the assessee's claims. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

ARIGATO AND OBLIGADO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED,. vs ITO WARD 3(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 31/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The ITAT set aside the NFAC's order, observing that the appeal was dismissed without a decision on merits and without providing the assessee a fair hearing. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

BENZI INAPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 3042/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-representation before lower authorities but, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing on all issues, including the maintainability of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.