ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal, considering a similar case of a sister concern and Supreme Court principles on condonation of delay emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach, found sufficient cause for the delay. It condoned the 1987-day delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits after hearing the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that the property was owned by a company (RD Finlease Pvt. Ltd.) and not by the assessee in her individual capacity. The agreement to sell, found during the search, was not acted upon and was entered into without the assessee having authority to do so, as she acquired shares in the company later. Therefore, the additions based on this agreement were not sustainable.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that CBDT Circular No.09/2024, dated 17/09/2024, set a revised monetary limit of Rs.60 Lacs for filing appeals. As the present appeal by the Revenue had a low tax effect falling below this threshold, the Tribunal concluded it was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock was an inherent part of the business and had been offered to tax as business income. Therefore, Section 69 was not applicable, and consequently, Section 115BBE was also not attracted.

The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the computed tax effect of the disputed amount, Rs. 23,59,629/-, was below the Rs. 60 lakh monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The dismissal includes a rider allowing for restoration if the case falls under exceptions to low tax effect appeals or for other valid reasons.

The tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to appear or present arguments despite numerous opportunities, demonstrating 'proverbial neglect' and a 'defiant attitude.' Given the absence of any defects pointed out or rebuttals made against the CIT(A)'s findings by the assessee, the tribunal affirmed the First Appellate Order.

The tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to appear or present arguments despite numerous opportunities, demonstrating 'proverbial neglect' and a 'defiant attitude.' Given the absence of any defects pointed out or rebuttals made against the CIT(A)'s findings by the assessee, the tribunal affirmed the First Appellate Order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, deeming it a low tax effect appeal in accordance with CBDT Circulars Nos.5/2024 and 09/2024. A rider was added allowing the Department to seek restoration if the case falls under specified exceptions or for other valid reasons.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the claim for indexed cost of acquisition. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is bound by Section 250(6) of the Act to decide the appeal on merits, even in ex-parte cases, and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 on the ground of low tax effect, being below the Rs.60 lakh monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars, with a provision for restoration if exceptions apply. The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was dismissed as withdrawn, as requested by their counsel.

The Tribunal found the assessee's claim plausible given its reflection in Form 26AS. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of the TDS/TCS claim within three months, allowing the assessee to present supporting evidence.

The tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to appear or present arguments despite numerous opportunities, demonstrating 'proverbial neglect' and a 'defiant attitude.' Given the absence of any defects pointed out or rebuttals made against the CIT(A)'s findings by the assessee, the tribunal affirmed the First Appellate Order.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment solely on borrowed information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind, thereby vitiating the reassessment proceedings. It also agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the payments were advances for work and not capitalized as work-in-progress, and no expenditure was claimed by the assessee, making the addition unwarranted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, rendering the appeals inadmissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by furnishing documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The enhancement under Section 56(2)(viib) was also deleted as the valuation was done as per prescribed rules.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the tax effect in the case was below Rs. 60 lacs, which is the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024 dated 17/09/2024 for filing appeals before the ITAT.

The tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeal. It found no material presented by the assessee to support its challenge to the validity of the reassessment proceedings (grounds 4 & 5) or to controvert the addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 (grounds 6 & 7). Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was affirmed.

The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court and Madras High Court judgments, held that properties where possession was not handed over or where ownership was only partial (50%) cannot be considered as 'owned' for the purpose of denying Section 54F exemption. It found that the assessee did not own more than one house property on the date of transfer of the original capital asset, thus entitling the assessee to the Section 54F exemption. Consequently, penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A were also deemed unsustainable.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, rendering the appeals inadmissible.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, concluding that the 'make available' criteria for FTS was not satisfied. It observed that the assessee did not acquire any technical knowledge, experience, or skill from the IT support services provided by the UK group company. Therefore, the payments could not be treated as FTS.

The ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient and bona-fide reasons for the 35-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stemming from the High Court writ petition. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits of the appeal, after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted the fresh evidences and quashed the impugned orders, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a reasoned order considering all evidence.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, acknowledging that the assessee could not prepare and produce the details before the lower authorities in time. The matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the newly admitted additional evidence and any other evidence the assessee may file, grant an opportunity of being heard, and pass a fresh reasoned order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on account of low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- for filing appeals. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the issue involved falls under specific exceptions outlined in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods due to Covid-19 and the genuineness of the assessee's stated reasons. It was noted that CIT(A) notices were not properly served on the assessee's correct email ID. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh reconsideration, with a direction to grant the assessee a full opportunity of being heard and to present evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had secured the desired registration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance throughout all levels of proceedings. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to the prolonged delay and the assessee's failure to demonstrate any sufficient cause. The impugned order was found to be just and proper given the assessee's lackadaisical approach.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiry by issuing a questionnaire and receiving replies with supporting documents. It also noted that rectification proceedings under Section 154 were pending when the PCIT invoked Section 263.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed ex-parte and the CIT(A) enhanced the addition. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity to produce all relevant documents and be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the adjustment, noting that the consultancy agreement was recent and not a recurring issue. The assessee failed to adequately explain the benchmarking of the transaction using the CUP method and the discrepancy between the agreed fee and the employee's salary.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to prove the transactions were non-genuine, relying solely on investigation reports without independent corroboration or evidence of the assessee's involvement in manipulation. The Tribunal found the additions to be based on assumptions and conjectures.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to revenue recognition and interest capitalization, finding them covered by previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. For the issue of unverified/unreconciled ledger balances, the Tribunal found that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity and directed the matter to be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by furnishing documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The enhancement under Section 56(2)(viib) was also deleted as the valuation was done as per prescribed rules.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to revenue recognition and interest capitalization, finding them covered by previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. For the issue of unverified/unreconciled ledger balances, the Tribunal found that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity and directed the matter to be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine, finding it not maintainable. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024, which revised monetary thresholds for appeals, as the tax effect in the instant case did not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs.60 Lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could seek restoration if the Circular was inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of recomputing cash sales on a fixed monthly average basis was arbitrary and not justified. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 6,82,909/- was deleted.

The tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14 due to non-appearance despite multiple notices. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 was allowed, thereby reinstating the additions related to commission that the CIT(A) had deleted, as no relief could be granted to the unrepresented assessee.

The tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14 due to non-appearance despite multiple notices. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 was allowed, thereby reinstating the additions related to commission that the CIT(A) had deleted, as no relief could be granted to the unrepresented assessee.

The tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14 due to non-appearance despite multiple notices. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 was allowed, thereby reinstating the additions related to commission that the CIT(A) had deleted, as no relief could be granted to the unrepresented assessee.

The Tribunal held that the approving authority had followed the due procedure and applied its mind while granting approval under Section 153D, dismissing the assessee's additional ground. Since the assessee did not appear and provided no material on merits, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the approving authority had followed the due procedure and applied its mind while granting approval under Section 153D, dismissing the assessee's additional ground. Since the assessee did not appear and provided no material on merits, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the approving authority had followed the due procedure and applied its mind while granting approval under Section 153D, dismissing the assessee's additional ground. Since the assessee did not appear and provided no material on merits, the appeals were dismissed.

The ITAT found that the AO made an elementary mistake by misinterpreting 'personnel expenditure' as 'personal expenditure' and made an ad hoc disallowance without asking for necessary details. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on a mistake apparent on record and a clearly mistaken presumption, thus deleting the disallowance made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were valid, dismissing the challenge to the faceless assessment procedure. Regarding the software license income, it was held that the assessee was entitled to benefits under the India-Austria DTAA and the income should not be taxed in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by furnishing documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The enhancement under Section 56(2)(viib) was also deleted as the valuation was done as per prescribed rules.

The Tribunal held that the AO had completed the assessment hurriedly without properly appreciating the information collected, including information obtained by the assessee through RTI. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, the addition was also sustained on merits. Citing the need for factual verification regarding the nature of compensation received and the sources of the FDRs, the Tribunal restored the entire issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination, ensuring the assessee is given adequate opportunity of hearing.