ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2024

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 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that the credit card expenses were not his. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding protective addition on investment.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that the credit card expenses were not his. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding protective addition on investment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer for differential TDR value and non-deduction of TDS on EDC payments were not based on incriminating material found and seized during the search. Citing relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions.

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 noted that the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected, and no deficiency in them was pointed out by the revenue authorities. Relying on the Delhi High Court decision in CIT vs. Kailash Jewelry House, the Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and included in the disclosed profit, cash deposits originating from such sales cannot be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, additional evidences filed by the assessee should be admitted. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with directions to decide the issues afresh, providing adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a business connection or a PE in India. Consequently, the receipts from offshore supplies are not taxable in India, and the provisions of Section 44BBB are not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had properly appreciated the facts and the transactions were genuine and routed through banking channels. The AO had overlooked the information submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to prove the transactions were non-genuine or that the assessee was involved in manipulation. The Tribunal found the additions were based on assumptions and conjectures, not evidence.

The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal. It held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses related to capital gains and in allowing the loss on sale of shares of PDK Shenaj Hotels Pvt. Ltd. However, it upheld the deletion of additions treating capital gains as business income.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to prove the transactions were non-genuine. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of online purchases, banking channel payments, dematerialization, and receipt of consideration through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to prove the transactions were non-genuine. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of online purchases, banking channel payments, dematerialization, and receipt of consideration through banking channels.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without deciding the case on its merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after giving due opportunity to the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made on a notional basis without any corroborative evidence or proof of actual receipt of interest. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

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, following its previous decision for AY 2014-15 and the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., held that an assessment order framed against an amalgamating company that has ceased to exist is void ab initio. It found that the Assessing Officer was aware of the amalgamation, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal, following its previous decision for AY 2014-15 and the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., held that an assessment order framed against an amalgamating company that has ceased to exist is void ab initio. It found that the Assessing Officer was aware of the amalgamation, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The ITAT found reasonable cause for the delay, condoning it, and noted that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. The tribunal remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing them to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and found no error or infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had, after considering judicial precedents, justifiably restricted the addition to 16.5% of the disallowed amount as an additional taxable income, without allowing benefit for expenses, acknowledging that sales corresponding to bogus purchases were accepted.

The Tribunal held that Section 22 and Section 32 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 deem an RRB to be a cooperative society for Income Tax Act purposes, with overriding effect. Therefore, the levy of 15% surcharge instead of 12% and consequential cess was incorrect and ordered to be deleted. The issue of charging interest under Section 234B became academic.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted opportunities for both video conferencing and a personal hearing before the CIT(A), but failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte order. Recognizing that the CIT(A) order was passed without a hearing, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had previously accepted the assessee's other deposits of Rs. 13,38,200/- as regular business receipts assessable at 8% under section 44AB. Applying the same logic, the Tribunal directed that the impugned cash deposits of Rs. 17,52,200/- also be treated as regular business receipts and assessed at 8%, with the caveat that this estimation should not set a precedent.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to appear before the AO, the CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence presented under Rule 46A during appellate proceedings, especially since the assessment was framed ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to produce all relevant documents and be heard.

The Tribunal ruled that since the underlying quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, has been remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings initiated in consequence cannot survive. Therefore, the order upholding the penalty was set aside, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after a revised assessment order is passed in accordance with law.

The tribunal, without commenting on the merits of the case, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The A.O. was directed to frame fresh assessment orders in accordance with law for all the appeals.

The tribunal, without commenting on the merits of the case, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The A.O. was directed to frame fresh assessment orders in accordance with law for all the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the notices going to the assessee's spam folder constituted a 'reasonable cause' for not responding. As the assessee became aware of the notices only upon physical receipt, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the penalty.

The tribunal, without commenting on the merits of the case, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The A.O. was directed to frame fresh assessment orders in accordance with law for all the appeals.

The tribunal, without commenting on the merits of the case, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The A.O. was directed to frame fresh assessment orders in accordance with law for all the appeals.

The tribunal, without commenting on the merits of the case, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The A.O. was directed to frame fresh assessment orders in accordance with law for all the appeals.

The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, observing that if such a large portion of purchases were bogus, the corresponding sales (which were accepted and assessed by the Sales Tax Department) would not be possible. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not reject the books of account or conduct further independent inquiries beyond issuing notices u/s 133(6) to substantiate the bogus nature of purchases. The onus shifted to the AO to prove the purchases were bogus, which he failed to discharge.

The tribunal, without commenting on the merits of the case, set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The A.O. was directed to frame fresh assessment orders in accordance with law for all the appeals.

The Tribunal held that Section 22 and Section 32 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 deem an RRB to be a cooperative society for Income Tax Act purposes, with overriding effect. Therefore, the levy of 15% surcharge instead of 12% and consequential cess was incorrect and ordered to be deleted. The issue of charging interest under Section 234B became academic.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issue of prior period expenses and depreciation to the AO for verification, directing that if not claimed in earlier years and not claimed in earlier years respectively, they would be allowable. The Tribunal also held that interest income on NPA should be taxed on receipt basis as per NHB guidelines, not accrual basis.

The Tribunal held that the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as search materials from a third party were used. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal restored the issue of prior period expenses and depreciation to the AO for verification, directing that if not claimed in earlier years and not claimed in earlier years respectively, they would be allowable. The Tribunal also held that interest income on NPA should be taxed on receipt basis as per NHB guidelines, not accrual basis.

The Delhi Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in ABC Papers Ltd, held that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines the appellate jurisdiction. Since the impugned assessment order was passed by an AO situated in Kolkata, the Delhi Tribunal lacked the power to adjudicate the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty for the revenue to approach the appropriate Bench in Kolkata.