ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2024

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing with the assessee's arguments that the cash sales were genuine, supported by sales vouchers and VAT returns, and the AO failed to prove them fictitious. The Tribunal stated that the AO cannot tax the same amount twice (as business income and unexplained deposits) and found the case covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision, thus confirming the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years in question (2011-12 and 2012-13) fall outside the permissible ten-year block period for reassessment under Section 153C, based on the date of the satisfaction note. Therefore, the additions made were barred by time and beyond jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the nature of the transaction (investment vs. trading) should be determined by the assessee's intent, considering factors like holding period, dividend income, and consistency in past assessments. The Tribunal found that the assessee's intent was to earn capital gains, not business income.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, held that the amendment to Section 269SS, which introduced "specified sum" for immovable property advances, is prospective and applicable only to cash receipts after 01/06/2015. Since the assessee received the cash consideration in installments before this effective date and no cash was received in the relevant assessment year (2017-18), the provisions of Section 269SS were not attracted. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271D was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years in question (2011-12 and 2012-13) fall outside the permissible ten-year block period for reassessment under Section 153C, based on the date of the satisfaction note. Therefore, the additions made were barred by time and beyond jurisdiction.

The ITAT sustained the addition of Rs.28,80,000/- related to unexplained loans from Mr. Hargovind Arora, finding that the creditworthiness of the lender was not established. For the remaining unexplained credits of Rs.17,40,000/-, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration, observing that the assessee's evidence had not been adequately investigated by the lower authorities, and directed the AO to provide reasonable opportunities for explanation.

The Tribunal noted the NCLT order imposing a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, it held that the appeals against the corporate debtor could not be proceeded with and were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order in due course, in accordance with law.

The Tribunal issued this corrigendum to rectify the mistake. It directed that the correct PAN, ACWPU2316H, should be read and substituted for the wrongly mentioned PAN in the cause title of its earlier order dated 29.02.2024.

The Tribunal noted the lack of effective representation by the assessee before lower authorities and that the assessee's claim regarding the source of deposits from property sales needed verification. Applying the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the assessment to the AO for fresh assessment after verifying the correctness of the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of purchases under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to prove business expediency for cash payments. The addition for bank deposits was also confirmed due to the failure to prove the source. However, the disallowance of license fee was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted the NCLT order imposing a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, it held that the appeals against the corporate debtor could not be proceeded with and were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order in due course, in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted the NCLT order imposing a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, it held that the appeals against the corporate debtor could not be proceeded with and were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order in due course, in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted the NCLT order imposing a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, it held that the appeals against the corporate debtor could not be proceeded with and were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order in due course, in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO. The AO/TPO is directed to properly apply the DRP's instructions, specifically regarding netting off payables and calculating interest on net receivables, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and to decide the matter as per law.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for late payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due dates prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) is in accordance with law. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. is applicable even to adjustments made under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal noted the NCLT order imposing a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, it held that the appeals against the corporate debtor could not be proceeded with and were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order in due course, in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted the NCLT order imposing a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, it held that the appeals against the corporate debtor could not be proceeded with and were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order in due course, in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted the NCLT order imposing a moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, 2016. Consequently, it held that the appeals against the corporate debtor could not be proceeded with and were dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order in due course, in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel claimed that the assessee, an employee of a transport company, incurred expenses on its behalf via credit card which were later reimbursed, but could not present the case properly before the AO or CIT(A). In the interest of justice, and with no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present their case.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment, stating that defective service affecting the appeal limitation period doesn't invalidate the assessment. On the core issue, the Tribunal ruled that Section 43A is not applicable as there was only a reinstatement of losses as per AS 11, not an actual payment or remittance. The Tribunal also noted the department's acceptance of similar treatment in previous years, thus allowing the appeal regarding the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was generic, listless, and mechanical, given in a blanket manner for 178 cases of 29 assessees without proper application of mind. Citing judicial precedents and CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008, the Tribunal emphasized that such approvals must reflect due application of mind to be legitimate. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned assessment order to be non-est and a nullity, setting it aside.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D was granted mechanically without due application of mind, rendering the entire search assessment illegal. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to Everest Global Inc. were for services utilized outside India for earning income from sources outside India. Therefore, these payments were not deemed to accrue or arise in India and the assessee was not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that no proceedings under Section 153C should have been initiated for Assessment Year 2017-18. This was because the date of seizure of the incriminating amount (17.11.2018) was relevant to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there was no other incriminating material found pertaining to AY 2017-18. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without valid jurisdiction as the AO should have proceeded under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, not Section 143(2). Consequently, the assessment order and the notice were quashed.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It held that Sh. Atul Punj was not an employee of M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd. and received no salary or benefits from the company. The Tribunal found that the payments to MCIL/ESL and Jaiman Engineering Pvt. Ltd. were genuine business expenditures for M/s Punj Lloyd Ltd., hence could not be treated as perquisites for the assessee.

The ITAT noted that the assessee's claim, supported by new evidence not previously submitted to lower authorities, required factual verification by the departmental authorities. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the quantum assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As the underlying addition did not survive due to the remand, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The ITAT noted that the assessee's claim, supported by new evidence not previously submitted to lower authorities, required factual verification by the departmental authorities. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the quantum assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As the underlying addition did not survive due to the remand, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that an assessee eligible for FTC, even if claimed in a modified return, should not be denied the benefit due to procedural errors, prioritizing substantial justice. It directed the grant of FTC benefit, noting that Revenue had allowed similar claims in subsequent assessment years. Interest under sections 234B and 234C was to be charged as per APA terms, and the education cess issue was not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to file a fresh appeal against the CIT(A) order dated 17/10/2023 within 30 days of receiving this order. It was clarified that the time consumed in the current proceedings would not be counted for limitation purposes if the fresh appeal is filed within the stipulated period.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld the ex-parte order without verifying the service of notice u/s 148, which is a fundamental issue. Consequently, both the quantum and penalty appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) upheld the ex-parte order without verifying the service of notice u/s 148, which is a fundamental issue. Consequently, both the quantum and penalty appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as purely legal issues going to the root of the matter. It was held that the notice under section 143(2) for AY 2012-13 was issued on 15.10.2013, which was beyond the statutory period of six months from the end of the assessment year (30.9.2013). Consequently, the initiation of proceedings and the jurisdiction invoked by the Assessing Officer were infirm, rendering the assessment order bad in law. The penalty order, being consequential, was also deleted.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that VAT/GST refunds are not taxable if the original payments were not claimed as deductible expenses. However, factual verification of the accounting treatment was required.

The Tribunal determined that the additional evidences were crucial for justice and should have been admitted. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with directions to admit and consider the additional evidences, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing a fresh order.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as purely legal issues going to the root of the matter. It was held that the notice under section 143(2) for AY 2012-13 was issued on 15.10.2013, which was beyond the statutory period of six months from the end of the assessment year (30.9.2013). Consequently, the initiation of proceedings and the jurisdiction invoked by the Assessing Officer were infirm, rendering the assessment order bad in law. The penalty order, being consequential, was also deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had denied the assessee a personal hearing despite a specific request, which constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and then decide the case afresh according to law.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground regarding the inventory write-off. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that if the inventory write-off is in accordance with the regularly followed accounting system and supported by an independent auditor's report, the disallowance is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and quashed it. This was because no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search, and the jurisdictional condition for issuing a notice under Section 153C was not satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and quashed it. This was because no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search, and the jurisdictional condition for issuing a notice under Section 153C was not satisfied.

The Tribunal, following its prior decision for A.Y. 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, remanded the issue of duty drawback to the AO. The AO is directed to re-determine the eligible deduction under Section 80-IC by excluding only the net amount of duty drawback, where corresponding customs and excise duties paid exceed the duty drawback received. The disallowance related to interest on KDRs was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee's counsel due to the smallness of the amount.

The tribunal held that the actual consideration of Rs.45 lakhs paid by the assessee for the commercial property should be considered as the cost of acquisition for long-term capital gain calculation. Consequently, the addition of Rs.33,73,120/- made by the AO was directed to be deleted. The tribunal further held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of carry-forward of long-term capital loss and directed the AO to verify and allow it.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal `in limine` as not maintainable within the narrow scope of rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, ruling that the CPC's denial of FTC due to belated Form 67 filing was not an 'apparent error' rectifiable under Section 154. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to pursue an appeal on merits against the original intimation under Section 143(1) and advised a benign view on condonation of delay for such an appeal.

The Tribunal held the reopening of assessment invalid on two grounds: firstly, it was initiated beyond four years without any failure to disclose material facts by the assessee being established by the AO; and secondly, the third proviso to section 147 barred reassessment on an issue already subject to appeal or decided on merits by a higher forum, which the ITAT had already done in the original assessment's appeal. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed that since the foundational revisional order passed under Section 263 was quashed by an earlier Tribunal order, the consequential assessment order, which derived its existence solely from the Section 263 order, could not independently survive. Thus, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the first appellate authority's decision to quash the assessment.

The Tribunal decided that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding alleged under-invoicing and unrecorded sales were not substantiated. The addition under section 56(2)(x) was also deleted due to lack of independent valuation by the AO and reliance on a letter not meant for valuation. The scrap sale addition was also decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits and without providing proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after ensuring the assessee is given a full opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal decided that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding alleged under-invoicing and unrecorded sales were not substantiated. The addition under section 56(2)(x) was also deleted due to lack of independent valuation by the AO and reliance on a letter not meant for valuation. The scrap sale addition was also decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that Section 292BB applies only when a notice, such as one issued under Section 143(2), is initially issued within the statutory period. Since the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, it rendered the subsequent assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's defense.

The Tribunal decided that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding alleged under-invoicing and unrecorded sales were not substantiated. The addition under section 56(2)(x) was also deleted due to lack of independent valuation by the AO and reliance on a letter not meant for valuation. The scrap sale addition was also decided in favor of the assessee.