ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal to substantiate his claim that his name was misused or that he was unaware of the cash deposits. As the primary onus to explain the source of the deposits was not discharged by the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the action of the lower authorities. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

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 no reasons were recorded for initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147/148. It held that the absence of recorded reasons constitutes a jurisdictional defect, making the reopening of the assessment invalid and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and other aspects of the case were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting the additional evidences without conducting a proper inquiry, which violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication to properly examine the genuineness of share application money/share premium, providing the assessee a due opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's income from consultancy was not passive, as it involved creating and providing hospital management systems through its directors. It noted that similar expenditures had been allowed by the AO in other assessment years and that the CIT(A) had rightly considered these aspects to grant relief.

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 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 held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. It found that the AO had made necessary inquiries regarding stipend payments and recoveries, and the arrangement had been consistently followed and accepted in previous years.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting the additional evidences without conducting a proper inquiry, which violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication to properly examine the genuineness of share application money/share premium, providing the assessee a due 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 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 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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) had merely granted relief based on the assessee's statements and evidences, without a proper remand report or adequate examination of the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and loans. Consequently, the ITAT restored both issues (the Rakesh Gupta transaction and the Section 68 unsecured loans) back to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, directing a thorough examination in accordance with law.

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 dismissed the appeal as defective due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance and failure to cure the defects, without entering into the merits of the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the AO had made the disallowances for miscellaneous expenses and sundry creditors without proper basis. It noted that the assessee had submitted details for expenses and that the sundry creditors arose from genuine purchases not questioned by the AO. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's supportive cross-objection was deemed infructuous.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the addition for notional interest on land, finding that borrowed funds were utilized for business purposes and thus interest was deductible under section 36(1)(iii). However, it dismissed the appeal concerning the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds for WIP, holding that such interest must be capitalized as per the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) until the asset is put to use. The grounds related to agricultural income were also dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s estimation of expenses and confirmation of additions due to insufficient evidence.

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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal but noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest. In the absence of any submissions from the assessee to controvert the departmental authorities' findings regarding the accounting treatment of duty drawback, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that the issue on merits had already been adjudicated by a previous order, and therefore, the Assessing Officer had no occasion to re-adjudicate it upon revival of assessment. The Revenue's grounds were found to be without substance.

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 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 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 ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the capitalization of APS expenses on an ad-hoc basis lacks legal validity, relying on a previous tribunal order. For the assessee's appeal regarding delayed PF deposits, the tribunal observed that some deposits were made within the grace period and remanded the matter to the AO for re-verification, thus allowing the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes.

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the capitalization of APS expenses on an ad-hoc basis lacks legal validity, relying on a previous tribunal order. For the assessee's appeal regarding delayed PF deposits, the tribunal observed that some deposits were made within the grace period and remanded the matter to the AO for re-verification, thus allowing the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes.

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 held that the appeal before it was against an order passed by the CIT(A) which was based on an appeal improperly filed before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the original block assessment order and the subsequent set-aside assessment order dated November 2, 2018, were both passed after obtaining prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) or Principal CIT. For searches conducted prior to January 1, 1997, and assessments requiring prior approval of the CIT, the first appeal lay directly to the Tribunal under Section 253(1)(b) of the Act. Conversely, for searches on or after January 1, 1997, requiring prior approval of the Joint Commissioner, the appeal lay to the CIT(A) under Section 246A. Since the set-aside assessment order dated November 2, 2018, was passed after obtaining prior approval of the Principal CIT, the assessee should have filed a direct appeal to the Tribunal. The CIT(A) therefore lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal on merits. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, granting liberty to file a fresh appeal directly to the Tribunal against the assessment order dated November 2, 2018, along with a delay condonation petition.

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 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 held that the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory for assessment or reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148, even after the assessee files a return in response to a section 148 notice. It clarified that section 292BB only cures infirmities in the service of a notice, not its mandatory issuance. The non-issuance of the 143(2) notice vitiates the assessment concluded under section 143(3), as it removes the foundational step for taking cognizance of the filed return.

The Tribunal held that the issue on merits had already been adjudicated by a previous order, and therefore, the Assessing Officer had no occasion to re-adjudicate it upon revival of assessment. The Revenue's grounds were found to be without substance.

The Tribunal, noting that the assessment year was unabated, held that an addition could not be sustained under Section 153A without any incriminating material found during the search. Citing the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, deciding the issue on jurisdictional grounds in favour of the assessee.

The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the AO to verify the discrepancy in the assessee's status (AOP/BOI vs. Trust) and re-compute the taxable income after considering the exemption u/s 12AA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, remitting the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication, giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-participation in assessment proceedings and lack of proper representation. In the interest of justice, without commenting on the merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish fresh evidence and make submissions.

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, found that the AO had not properly examined the nature of the assessee's activities in light of the Apex Court's guidelines. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, found that the AO had not properly examined the nature of the assessee's activities in light of the Apex Court's guidelines. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, found that the AO had not properly examined the nature of the assessee's activities in light of the Apex Court's guidelines. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was based on incriminating material found during a search of a third party (Alankit Group) pertaining to the assessee, proceedings under Section 153C were applicable, not Section 147. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were void ab initio.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the FAA's decision to dispose of the appeal prior to the deadline it had set for the assessee's submissions violated principles of natural justice by depriving the assessee of a fair opportunity. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the FAA's order and restored the issues to the FAA for fresh adjudication with a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the WhatsApp chat merely showed a group of lawyers making payments to another lawyer and did not prove the assessee received or paid the money. The presumption under Section 132(4A) was rebuttable, and the assessee successfully demonstrated he acted only as a coordinator with no monetary connection. Thus, the assessee could not be held as the owner of the ₹5 lakhs, rendering Section 69A inapplicable. The addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given proper consideration for the evidences submitted to reconcile the discrepancy. To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide a further opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the factual matrix and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, allowed the appeals and granted the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing and considering all evidence, including any new evidence presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, allowed the appeals and granted the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing and considering all evidence, including any new evidence presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating the assessee as a trader for these specific share transactions. The short-term capital loss was deemed genuine and eligible for set-off against short-term capital gains.

The Tribunal, respectfully relying on a co-ordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case, restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine and verify the genuineness of the cash advances, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without taking into account the assessee's submissions, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record his dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo moto disallowance before invoking Rule 8D. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the Explanation to Section 14A inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, is not retrospective in nature, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.