ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2024

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. As the additions in dispute were not based on such material, the assessment orders were deemed bad in law and set aside.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. As the additions in dispute were not based on such material, the assessment orders were deemed bad in law and set aside.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. As the additions in dispute were not based on such material, the assessment orders were deemed bad in law and set aside.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. As the additions in dispute were not based on such material, the assessment orders were deemed bad in law and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the AO had conducted the necessary inquiries as per the initial directions, and the CIT(E) failed to identify specific errors or materials to justify the revision.

The Tribunal allowed the Section 10B deduction, noting that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years and the facts were identical. It also allowed deduction on interest earned on FDRs under Section 10B(4) and restored the credit card expenses issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.

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 the AO and CIT(A) erred in disregarding the DCF-based valuation report without establishing defects in the methodology or data. Rule 11UA(1)(b) was also found to be inapplicable. The assessee had substantiated the FMV of its shares based on a valuation report.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It noted the principle of consistency as the Revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s finding on the same issue in the preceding assessment year. The ITAT affirmed that the interest subsidy, given its purpose to promote industrial development and employment, constituted a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed before the search date, and the materials impounded from a third party's premises (Chartered Accountant) cannot be considered as incriminating material found during the assessee's search for the purpose of Section 153A additions.

The Tribunal held that the commission income and subscription fees received by the assessee were not FTS. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year, which had decided similar issues.

The Tribunal determined that the unsecured loan transactions, including their receipt and repayment, did not pertain to the Assessment Year 2018-19. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the factual aspects of the loans and repayments, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard and presenting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the commission income and subscription fees received by the assessee were not FTS. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year, which had decided similar issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts and findings of the AY 2011-12 case were applicable. It was established that the assessee's brother, Mr. Vikas Kansal, had already surrendered income corresponding to the peak balance in the disputed bank accounts and paid tax on it. The Revenue failed to controvert this documentary evidence or prove that the income surrendered by Vikas Kansal did not include these specific credit entries. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that upholding the Revenue's appeal would lead to double taxation and unjust enrichment, as the income had already been taxed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on Kabul Chawla was misplaced as the assessment was unabated. However, it deleted additions under Section 68 and 56(2)(viib) for Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd. For ENN VEE Holdings Pvt. Ltd., it directed deletion of additions under Section 68 and confirmed an addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding cash deposits to the AO, including a cash flow statement and documentary evidence. Therefore, the PCIT's finding of a lack of inquiry by the AO was based on an erroneous conclusion.

The tribunal acknowledged the initiation of reassessment based on a Non PAN AIR Report and the non-service of proper notice. It decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to properly consider the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after affording a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that transactions between husband and wife for common family benefit, such as house renovation, do not constitute a 'loan' or 'deposit' in the strict sense for the purpose of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Relying on previous High Court and Tribunal decisions, it found that the assessee had a reasonable cause and that the penalty under Section 271D was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the issue squarely covered by the assessee's own previous cases, which established that commission paid to whole-time directors constitutes 'salary income' under Section 192. TDS under Section 192 is deductible only at the time of payment, not provision. This position was previously upheld by the Mumbai ITAT Bench and the Bombay High Court.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee's IDS declaration of Rs. 5 crore as cash in hand and business income was valid and accepted by the authorities, with tax, interest, and penalty of Rs. 2.25 crore duly paid. The Tribunal stated that the AO's addition amounted to a double addition and distinguished the Delhi High Court precedent cited by the Revenue, as the IDS declaration in that case was void.

The ITAT ruled that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as the assessee had a refund claim from excess TDS, implying no advance tax was due. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal and consequently set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had intimated the amalgamation to the Assessing Officer before the assessment was completed, and the AO was aware of this fact. Citing Apex Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that an assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is a nullity and void ab initio. Consequently, both the assessment order and the First Appellate Authority's order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed before the search date, and the materials impounded from a third party's premises (Chartered Accountant) cannot be considered as incriminating material found during the assessee's search for the purpose of Section 153A additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed before the search date, and the materials impounded from a third party's premises (Chartered Accountant) cannot be considered as incriminating material found during the assessee's search for the purpose of Section 153A additions.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a reply to the Section 148 notice was fatal to the re-assessment order. It clarified that Section 292BB cures only infirmities in service, not the complete non-issuance of a notice, rendering the re-assessment order void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee ceased to exist at the beginning of the assessment year due to the subsidiaries' default and the bank's initiation of recovery proceedings. Therefore, there was no international transaction to benchmark for this assessment year.

The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding business promotion expenses, noting that small cash payments are normal business practice and the Assessing Officer failed to justify the disallowance. For the share capital issue, the tribunal held that the conversion of directors' current account balances into share capital was a legitimate explanation, and the assessee had discharged its onus of proof, directing the deletion of the Rs. 91 lakhs addition. The tribunal also condoned a delay of 1020 days in filing the appeal due to valid reasons like communication gaps and Covid-19.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to confirming parties and the occupant were essential for the transfer of the property and constituted expenditure under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. It was also held that the income was diverted before it reached the assessee, thus not taxable in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed before the search date, and the materials impounded from a third party's premises (Chartered Accountant) cannot be considered as incriminating material found during the assessee's search for the purpose of Section 153A additions.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing. The assessee is directed to ensure compliance, and the AO to provide reasonable opportunities.

The Tribunal noted the ex-parte assessment due to non-service of notice on the assessee. Considering her status as an agriculturist with no taxable income, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to provide further evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to utilize opportunities before the PCIT. However, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order. The matter was remitted back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard and to consider all evidence.

The tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority disposed of the assessee's appeal ex parte without examining the detailed submissions and documentary evidences provided. Consequently, all issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that pursuant to the NCLT order, a moratorium was in effect, which prohibits the continuation of any proceedings against the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as infructuous, granting liberty to the assessee to revive them after the insolvency proceedings are concluded.

The Tribunal noted that pursuant to the NCLT order, a moratorium was in effect, which prohibits the continuation of any proceedings against the corporate debtor. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as infructuous, granting liberty to the assessee to revive them after the insolvency proceedings are concluded.

As the issue in appeal was settled under the VSVS, rendering the appeal infructuous, both parties agreed to its withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal, finding the appeal infructuous, dismissed it.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on Kabul Chawla was misplaced as the assessment was unabated. However, it deleted additions under Section 68 and 56(2)(viib) for Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd. For ENN VEE Holdings Pvt. Ltd., it directed deletion of additions under Section 68 and confirmed an addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in denying TDS credit solely due to the absence of Form 16A or non-reflection in Form 26AS, especially when the assessee had accounted for the income. The inability of the assessee to procure Form 16A due to the deductor's actions should not lead to refusal of TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in denying TDS credit solely due to the absence of Form 16A or non-reflection in Form 26AS, especially when the assessee had accounted for the income. The inability of the assessee to procure Form 16A due to the deductor's actions should not lead to refusal of TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in denying TDS credit solely due to the absence of Form 16A or non-reflection in Form 26AS, especially when the assessee had accounted for the income. The inability of the assessee to procure Form 16A due to the deductor's actions should not lead to refusal of TDS credit.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee lacked 12AA registration at the time of filing, a subsequent registration was obtained. However, it was found that no assessment proceedings were pending before the AO at the time of registration. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to reassess the income as per ITR 5, after considering the financial statements and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive proper notices due to an incorrect address, leading to a denial of opportunity of being heard. Consequently, both the quantum assessment and the penalty imposed were set aside. The matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive proper notices due to an incorrect address, leading to a denial of opportunity of being heard. Consequently, both the quantum assessment and the penalty imposed were set aside. The matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found the facts of the case to be identical to a prior ruling (Vaibhav Singhal vs. ITO). Following the precedent, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) with directions to consider the assessee's claim for Foreign Tax Credit based on the documents already submitted and decide it as per law.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A is applicable only to unexplained money not recorded in books of account. Since the cash deposits were recorded in the assessee's audited books of account and supported by cash book entries, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not establish that the surrendered income was 'deemed income' under Sections 68 to 69D as the conditions for these sections were not met. The surrendered amount was related to the cessation of long-standing sundry creditors.

The ITAT held that the surrendered amount of Rs. 4,42,00,000/-, declared as 'Cessation of Creditors', falls under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, allowing it to be set off against business losses/unabsorbed depreciation. The AO failed to provide evidence classifying this as 'deemed income' under Sections 68 to 69D. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

For AY 2020-21 (ITA No. 1868/Del/2023), the Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, held that the disputed receipts could not be classified as 'royalty' and directed the deletion of the addition of INR 33,11,70,181/-. Consequently, the AO was instructed to recalculate interest and drop penalty proceedings. For AY 2021-22 (ITA No. 3342/Del/2023), the Tribunal applied the same reasoning to similar issues and directed verification of tax rates as per the DTAA and grant of TDS credit.