ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the interests of natural justice required a fresh consideration. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity to file a delay condonation application with an affidavit, and then to decide the appeal on its merits according to law.

The Tribunal, relying on its previous common order for the appellant's own case in earlier assessment years, held that the classification of advertisement expenditure as capital or revenue is a highly debatable issue. It further noted that disallowances made on an ad-hoc basis do not warrant the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty levied by the AO.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of brokerage expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication, instructing to admit additional evidence. It deleted the disallowance of sundry balances written off, noting that the assessee had already disallowed it in the income tax return, preventing double taxation. The disallowance of interest payment to Kriti Trackon Pvt. Ltd. was deleted as the AO's basis for finding the loan bogus in a previous AY was factually incorrect. Similarly, disallowance of interest payments to Glorious Holdings, Kallol Kutir, and New KMS Finance was deleted as prior ITAT orders had reversed the underlying loan disallowances for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance and lack of evidence regarding TDS compliance. It set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to grant the appellant another opportunity to be heard and present all relevant evidence, passing an order strictly in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that all disallowances were unsustainable, finding no evidence from the AO that expenses paid to FILR were not commensurate with market value, faculty salaries were justified by their qualifications and full-time engagement, and commissions and computer expenses were supported by documentation. The Tribunal also confirmed the eligibility of the charitable trust for depreciation on assets, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation credible and noting no negligence on their part, emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented view for condonation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the issues on merit, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present further evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's tabulated data indicated the employee's contribution to EPF/ESI was deposited within the 15th of the next month following salary disbursement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue, remanding it to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to pass a reasoned order after verifying the details provided and offering the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in *CIT vs. Vasavi Pratap Chand*, set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh calculation of capital gains. The AO is directed to consider the Tribunal's findings, the legal principles established in *Vasavi Pratap Chand*, and verify the new computation presented by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in adding Rs. 97 lakhs to the sale consideration, as it was already accounted for by the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was denied an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and consider any evidence submitted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was denied an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and consider any evidence submitted.

The Tribunal, relying on a previous coordinate bench order and NCLT directions, held that a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prohibits the institution or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the case, with liberty granted to the Revenue to re-institute the appeal after the completion of the CIRP proceedings.

The tribunal, noting the passing of the consequential order by the Assessing Officer accepting the return of income, concluded that the appeal before them had become infructuous. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for the 206-day delay. The medical certificate provided for the partner's illness lacked supporting prescriptions or examination reports, and the consultant's explanation for oversight was not backed by cogent evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find the grounds for condonation convincing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for the 206-day delay. The medical certificate provided for the partner's illness lacked supporting prescriptions or examination reports, and the consultant's explanation for oversight was not backed by cogent evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find the grounds for condonation convincing.

The Tribunal noted the AO's inconsistent approach, where for AY 2011-12, cash deposits were treated as sales with an 8% income assessment, but for AY 2012-13, the entire deposits were treated as income without new material. The Tribunal ruled that the AO could not deviate from the previous year's method without contrary facts and directed the AO to assess the income for AY 2012-13 at 8% of the total cash deposits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's partial compliances and the challenges faced by less informed taxpayers in the digital eco-system. It held that the assessee was not grossly negligent and deserved another opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded both issues back to the designated authority for de novo consideration, with directions to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's partial compliances and the challenges faced by less informed taxpayers in the digital eco-system. It held that the assessee was not grossly negligent and deserved another opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded both issues back to the designated authority for de novo consideration, with directions to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the Section 80IA deduction based on settled judgments. For the unsecured loans, the Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its primary onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan, and the AO's enquiry was flawed due to incorrect addresses. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and the disallowance lacked specific rationale.

Despite repeated opportunities and issuance of notice, the assessee did not appear before the ITAT for hearings. Relying on the reasoned order of the CIT(A) and with the assistance of the Ld. DR, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, confirming all the disputed additions and disallowances. The ground relating to interest on TDS and late fee was dismissed as not pressed by the appellant.

The Tribunal held that receipts from CRM services are not taxable as royalty or FTS, following the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The Tribunal also directed verification of TDS credit and interest levies.

The Tribunal ruled that the transfer of Rs. 6 lakh by the assessee was not incriminating, as it was a transfer of money, not a receipt, made through banking channels and recorded in books. It emphasized that mere transactions with a searched person do not trigger Section 153C without specific incriminating material indicating clandestine activities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to reverse the addition.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction over the assessee. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had no effective representation before the lower authorities, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits by the CIT(A), allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from Bandwidth charges are not taxable as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore DTAA, consistently with its decisions in earlier assessment years, and directed the AO to delete the addition. For the issue of TDS credit, the Tribunal directed the AO to factually verify the assessee's claim for TDS on interest income from tax refunds and grant credit in accordance with law. Ground no. 6 was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of the assessment was justified due to the cash deposits, the AO could not travel beyond the mandate of verifying the source of these deposits. Since the assessee had provided evidence of selling agricultural land, the sources for the cash deposits were established.

The Tribunal observed that the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) dismissed the first appeal superficially, without mentioning notice service or giving proper hearing, and failed to address the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) dismissed the first appeal superficially, without mentioning notice service or giving proper hearing, and failed to address the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) dismissed the first appeal superficially, without mentioning notice service or giving proper hearing, and failed to address the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) dismissed the first appeal superficially, without mentioning notice service or giving proper hearing, and failed to address the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that any tax paid or sought to be paid after the expiry of the financial year should be construed as self-assessment tax, not advance tax. It ruled that the assessee's request for adjustment of seized fixed deposits on 11.04.2012 must be treated as payment towards self-assessment tax liability. Citing a judicial precedent and Explanation 2 to Section 132B, the Tribunal directed the AO to adjust the seized fixed deposits against the self-assessment tax payable by the assessee with effect from 11.04.2012 and recompute the interest under Section 234B accordingly. The ground regarding limitation of the rectification order was left open as relief was granted on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions had been deleted, the corresponding penalty orders were not sustainable and were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the associated stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary objective satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions had been deleted, the corresponding penalty orders were not sustainable and were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the associated stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions had been deleted, the corresponding penalty orders were not sustainable and were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the associated stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions had been deleted, the corresponding penalty orders were not sustainable and were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the associated stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions had been deleted, the corresponding penalty orders were not sustainable and were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the associated stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions had been deleted, the corresponding penalty orders were not sustainable and were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the associated stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that receipts from CRM services are not taxable as royalty or FTS, following the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The Tribunal also directed verification of TDS credit and interest levies.

The Tribunal held that receipts from CRM services are not taxable as royalty or FTS, following the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The Tribunal also directed verification of TDS credit and interest levies.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's rectification requests and reduced the tax demands for all assessment years. Since the assessee had received the requested relief and failed to demonstrate any remaining grievance or how they were aggrieved by the rectification order, the ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's rectification requests and reduced the tax demands for all assessment years. Since the assessee had received the requested relief and failed to demonstrate any remaining grievance or how they were aggrieved by the rectification order, the ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's rectification requests and reduced the tax demands for all assessment years. Since the assessee had received the requested relief and failed to demonstrate any remaining grievance or how they were aggrieved by the rectification order, the ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The tribunal noted that the assessee was not adequately heard by the AO and CIT(A) due to issues with notice compliance. To ensure natural justice and provide another opportunity, the tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* verification and assessment, with directions for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited Vs. CIT, affirmed that employee contributions to PF and ESI are deductible under Section 43B only if deposited on or before the due dates specified by the respective acts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the Section 263 order was set aside by a coordinate bench, the subsequent assessment order based on it became infructuous. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits and a valuation report, to prove that a significant portion of the jewellery found belonged to her widowed mother-in-law, divorced sister-in-law, and sister. Since the revenue authorities did not counter these submissions, the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 should be extended to include this jewellery.

The Tribunal held that receipts from CRM services are not taxable as royalty or FTS, following the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The Tribunal also directed verification of TDS credit and interest levies.

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was silent on the mode and actual service of notices. Concluding that the ends of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh order after providing the assessee a proper hearing.