ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2024

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue due to the demise of the assessee. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to file a fresh appeal in the name of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claim of double-counted interest income and provide necessary relief if the claim is substantiated, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions. For the share capital and premium, it found that genuineness was established with evidence and that the investors were related companies/promoters, negating suspicion based on poor financials. For customer advances, it noted that sales against these advances were made in subsequent financial years, thus confirming the transactions were not unexplained cash credits.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the profit on sale of fixed assets and allow depreciation as per the Income Tax Act. However, the ground pertaining to the disallowance of late ESI/PF payment was dismissed, relying on a Supreme Court judgment.

The ITAT held that since the additions made by the AO in the quantum proceedings, which were the basis for initiating penalty proceedings, had been deleted by the ITAT Delhi Bench 'G' in earlier quantum appeals, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. Therefore, the impugned penalty was deleted.

The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the additions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned findings, as the Revenue failed to controvert them. The AO's own remand report had largely substantiated the assessee's submissions, indicating that the additions were erroneous, double-counted, or belonged to a different assessment year.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld the confirmation of the addition. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to adduce any fresh material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings and also did not diligently pursue the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claim of double-counted interest income and provide necessary relief if the claim is substantiated, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of interest on unsecured loans to the Assessing Officer for re-computation, directing consideration of all loans and production of bank statements by the assessee. For issues related to securities/advances and stock/profit arising from a Central Excise search, the assessee was directed to produce relevant bank statements and orders from Central Excise authorities, respectively, for the AO's re-adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found no evidence from the Income Tax Department to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings. The CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions related to property transactions, as the TEP lacked specific details and corroborative evidence, and also validly held that interest from the NRE account was exempt from tax. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals). The ITAT directed the CIT(Appeals) to serve proper notice to the assessee and pass a fresh order on merits, emphasizing that the mode of notice service and the assessee's actual knowledge were not clear from the CIT(Appeals)'s order.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The ITAT did not delve into the merits of the additions. Instead, it focused on the preliminary objection raised by the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of the AO and CIT(A), as the assessee claimed to be a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). Given the agreement of both parties to remit the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the entire matter back to the AO to first determine the question of jurisdiction and then pass an appropriate order.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that an appeal against a Section 153A assessment is not maintainable if no fresh additions are made by the Assessing Officer based on incriminating material found during the search. It clarified that since the original additions from the Section 143(3) assessment were already set aside and remanded, they would not sustain in the Section 153A proceedings either.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Exemptions), finding no flaw or infirmity in the order. The Tribunal concurred that the assessee's objects did not qualify as charitable, the absence of activities made genuineness unverifiable, and the incorrect ITR filing further supported the denial of 12AA registration.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was based on an erroneous assumption of fact regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement. Consequently, the issues on merits pertaining to the reassessment were restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh order, ensuring the assessee is provided an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the adverse Inspector's report, heavily relied upon by the lower authorities, was not confronted to the assessee. Furthermore, the authorities did not independently verify the assessee's evidence of sales or inquire with customers despite a claimed change in business composition. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal ruled that an order passed under Section 263 in the name of a deceased person, when the tax authority was aware of the death, is non-est (non-existent) and without jurisdiction. Consequently, any subsequent assessment order framed in pursuance of such a void order is also vitiated and must be set aside. The additional legal ground was admitted as it goes to the root of the matter.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous coordinate bench decision in the case of M/s. VRP Landbase Pvt. Ltd., where an identical addition for cash receipt was dismissed due to lack of corroborative evidence. Following this, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition against the present assessee, finding no infirmity in the order.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in setting aside the AO's order. The interest on enhanced compensation is taxable as income from other sources, and the AO's acceptance of it as exempt was legally incorrect.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the disallowance of rent expenses under Section 37(1) as the premises were used for residential purposes and not exclusively for business. It also confirmed the disallowance of project expenses, treating them as capital expenditure and noting the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence during any stage of the proceedings.

The Tribunal, relying on its own prior decision in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year, held that salary income earned by a non-resident for services rendered outside India is exempt from tax in India under Article 15(1) of the India-Korea DTAA. It confirmed that the services were rendered outside India and thus the income could not be deemed to accrue or arise in India under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons related to Covid-19 and farmer's agitation as sufficient cause. It found that the AO made mechanical additions without proper inquiry and that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity during the assessment and first appellate proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's plea of financial hardship and inability to pay tax. If the plea is found acceptable, the appeal should be admitted and decided on merit after providing an opportunity of being heard and considering all evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that, in light of the moratorium imposed by the NCLT under Section 14 of the IBC Code 2016, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the Assessee would not survive. Consequently, both were dismissed, with liberty granted to recall the order after the conclusion of the IBC proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had accepted the reassessment order by not appealing against it. The rectification order, which stemmed from an application to delete a penalty, could not be used as an 'escape route' to challenge the quantum addition or interest from the original reassessment order. Therefore, the quantum addition and charging of interest in the reassessment order could not be raised in appellate proceedings against the rectification order.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a portion of the interest income, acknowledging it as attributable to the society's core activities. However, it upheld the disallowance for the remaining portion, considering it not directly related to the primary business.

The Tribunal allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for a portion of the interest income, acknowledging it as attributable to the society's core activities. However, it upheld the disallowance for the remaining portion, considering it not directly related to the primary business.

The tribunal, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's plea of financial hardship and inability to pay tax. If the plea is found acceptable, the appeal should be admitted and decided on merit after providing an opportunity of being heard and considering all evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a third party's statement or diary entries without corroborative evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for construction expenses and foreign currency purchases, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s decision, finding inconsistencies in the assessee's justification for the cash. It noted the assessee's history of not filing returns in previous years and the lack of substance in her claims, concluding that the father-in-law did not have sufficient cash balance to gift the disputed Rs. 10 lakhs. Thus, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s conclusion.

The First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) deleted the addition after the assessee provided confirmations, PANs, ITR acknowledgements, and bank statements for 10 out of 11 suppliers, including those who had initially denied sales or were untraceable. For the one deceased supplier, a death certificate was provided. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the genuineness of the transactions rightly accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to substantiate its claim of erroneous calculations in the M.B. Shah report or to refute the findings of under-invoicing. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were found to have no substance.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's denial of carry forward of long-term capital loss without a show cause notice and without assigning reasons was 'out-rightly perfunctory, illegal and without jurisdiction,' violating the principles of natural justice and the provisos to Section 143(1)(a). It further ruled that the First Appellate Authority lacked the power to remand the case back to the CPC/AO under Sections 250 and 251. As the assessee had filed the return within the due date and no adverse observations regarding the genuineness of the loss were made, the claim for carry forward of long-term capital loss must be allowed.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, held that a time gap between cash withdrawal and deposit should not lead to rejection of the explanation, especially considering the assessee's wife represented the case after the assessee's demise. The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, held that a time gap between cash withdrawal and deposit should not lead to rejection of the explanation, especially considering the assessee's wife represented the case after the assessee's demise. The additions were deleted.

The tribunal held that since the grounds taken in the appeals were duly covered by the APA order, the appeals would no longer require adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the date of acquisition of the property should be reckoned from the initial booking/allotment date, not the date of possession or subsequent agreements. Therefore, the capital gains arising from the sale of the properties should be treated as long-term capital gains.