ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2024

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A). It held that the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly applied, particularly considering the assessee's investments yielding exempt income and the principles established in the Maxopp judgment. The appeal of the assessee was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had indeed disallowed Rs. 4,66,800/-, which included the disputed MSME interest of Rs. 3,82,508/- and prior period expenses. The assessee had incorrectly classified these as 'liability of a contingent nature' in the return of income. Recognizing this as an apparent mistake and to prevent double disallowance, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It quashed the assessment proceedings, holding that the AO should not tax income offered on a mercantile basis for unrealized debtors, applying the principle of consistency. The penalty appeal was also allowed.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to grant the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing and decision.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 151 was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the assessment made in the assessee's case was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to defects in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and mechanical approval by the competent authority under Section 151. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to defects in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and mechanical approval by the competent authority under Section 151. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). However, it deemed the total penalty imposed by the AO excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from the original amounts to Rs. 10,000 for each of the assessment years involved.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions for claiming bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. It also allowed the deduction for interest paid on late deposit of indirect taxes, considering it compensatory rather than penal.

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA was not allowable as it was not made in the return of income and the mandatory procedural requirements, including furnishing a report from an accountant, were not met. The claim was raised for the first time during appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was bad in law as it should have been initiated under Section 153C. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, finding it to be void.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the assessee's explanation of unawareness regarding the SFT filing requirement and technical portal issues, especially for a single transaction, constituted a bona fide explanation. Aligning with previous judgments, the ITAT deemed the breach technical or venial due to bona fide ignorance, thereby deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that once a search under section 132 has taken place, assessment proceedings for the relevant years must be initiated and completed under section 153A, not section 147/148. Issuing notice under section 148 in such a scenario is without jurisdiction.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not admissible in light of CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had 'sufficient cause' for the delay and the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay while still adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and re-adjudicate the issue on merits, specifically determining if the amended provisions of section 54 (effective 1.4.2015) are applicable to Assessment Year 2013-14.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had passed away and the Revenue failed to bring the legal heir on record despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on procedural grounds, with liberty to recall the order if the legal heir is subsequently brought on record.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, including a jewel loan, to explain the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus placed upon him.

The Tribunal observed contradictory claims regarding the submission of transfer pricing documents. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte or for non-compliance, not on merits. Consequently, in the interest of justice and with the Ld. DR's agreement, the Tribunal remitted both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte or for non-compliance, not on merits. Consequently, in the interest of justice and with the Ld. DR's agreement, the Tribunal remitted both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA was not allowable as it was not made in the return of income and the mandatory procedural requirements, including furnishing a report from an accountant, were not met. The claim was raised for the first time during appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A)'s enhancement power under Section 251(1)(a) is circumscribed by the AO's mandate in a limited scrutiny case. It held that the CIT(A) cannot introduce new sources of income or examine issues beyond the original limited scrutiny scope if the AO himself was not authorized to do so without converting the assessment to full scrutiny.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that procedural rules are directory, not mandatory, and should serve the ends of justice. Considering the CBDT circulars extending the time limits for filing such applications, the Tribunal found the rejection by the CIT(E) to be improper.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). However, it deemed the total penalty imposed by the AO excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from the original amounts to Rs. 10,000 for each of the assessment years involved.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). However, it deemed the total penalty imposed by the AO excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from the original amounts to Rs. 10,000 for each of the assessment years involved.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). However, it deemed the total penalty imposed by the AO excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from the original amounts to Rs. 10,000 for each of the assessment years involved.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). However, it deemed the total penalty imposed by the AO excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from the original amounts to Rs. 10,000 for each of the assessment years involved.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). However, it deemed the total penalty imposed by the AO excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from the original amounts to Rs. 10,000 for each of the assessment years involved.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds to be unsustainable, as it ignored the clear directive from the jurisdictional High Court. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits, providing the appellant a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, in accordance with the High Court's order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had failed to comply with notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2). However, it deemed the total penalty imposed by the AO excessive. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from the original amounts to Rs. 10,000 for each of the assessment years involved.

The Tribunal found that the MAP resolution for UK entities could not be directly applied to non-UK entities. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the issue of royalty payments to non-UK entities was remitted back to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding the explanations for non-submission during earlier proceedings reasonable. The assessment was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration of these evidences.

The Tribunal found that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity for personal hearing and did not judicially address the jurisdictional issues concerning the reassessment under section 147. The matter was restored to the NFAC to re-examine the legality and validity of the reassessment and decide on merits after providing the assessee a fair hearing and opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the matter to a Valuation Officer for a valuation report. If an addition is still required based on the report, it should be restricted to the assessee's share in the jointly owned property. The issue was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 60 Lacs. Since the tax effect in the present case was below this limit, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek re-institution if the appeal fell under specific exceptions mentioned in the Circular.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had sustained the addition without deciding the appeal on its merits. To ensure natural justice and provide the assessee a proper opportunity to represent its case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as bona fide and reasonable. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering that the assessee-company was 'strike off' and its PAN was not found, the Tribunal concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed in limine, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek revival if they wished to pursue the grievance.

The Tribunal noted that for most issues (Grounds 1-3 and 5-10), the AO had accepted the assessee's contentions in remand proceedings, and the CIT(A) granted relief based on the AO's remand report. Regarding Ground 4 (Section 14A disallowance), the Tribunal held that since the assessee derived no exempt income during the year, Section 14A provisions were not applicable. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no grievance for the revenue on any ground and dismissed the appeal.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 1707 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and fair play, noting the assessee's contention of non-service of the intimation order was not disproved. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circulars 3/2020 and 16/2022 mandate condonation of delay up to 365 days for filing Form 10B for AY 2018-19 and subsequent years. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to admit the audit report with Form 10B and decide the issue afresh as per law, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied adequate opportunity of being heard at both the assessment and first appellate stages. It found the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal based on insufficient email notices erroneous and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on both grounds. For Section 14A, it held that since the assessee had not declared any exempt income, the provision was not applicable, citing settled legal positions. Regarding the deemed dividend, the Tribunal found that the transactions with GFPL were current account transactions involving reimbursements for expenses, not a loan, thus Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that since a satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was duly recorded for AY 2021-22, the assessment should have been conducted under Section 153C. The assessment framed under Section 143(3) was found to be impermissible in law and was therefore quashed. Consequently, the additions challenged by the assessee did not survive.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), recognizing the contentious legal nature of the issue. It held that the pre-amended Section 200A did not permit processing of TDS statements for default in payment of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Consequently, the demand for late fees and associated interest charges were quashed, citing judicial precedent establishing the prospective application of the amendment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), recognizing the contentious legal nature of the issue. It held that the pre-amended Section 200A did not permit processing of TDS statements for default in payment of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Consequently, the demand for late fees and associated interest charges were quashed, citing judicial precedent establishing the prospective application of the amendment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), recognizing the contentious legal nature of the issue. It held that the pre-amended Section 200A did not permit processing of TDS statements for default in payment of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Consequently, the demand for late fees and associated interest charges were quashed, citing judicial precedent establishing the prospective application of the amendment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), recognizing the contentious legal nature of the issue. It held that the pre-amended Section 200A did not permit processing of TDS statements for default in payment of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Consequently, the demand for late fees and associated interest charges were quashed, citing judicial precedent establishing the prospective application of the amendment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), recognizing the contentious legal nature of the issue. It held that the pre-amended Section 200A did not permit processing of TDS statements for default in payment of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Consequently, the demand for late fees and associated interest charges were quashed, citing judicial precedent establishing the prospective application of the amendment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), recognizing the contentious legal nature of the issue. It held that the pre-amended Section 200A did not permit processing of TDS statements for default in payment of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015. Consequently, the demand for late fees and associated interest charges were quashed, citing judicial precedent establishing the prospective application of the amendment.