ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to incorrect addresses on record and the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the A.O. with a direction to frame a de-novo assessment after serving notice to the proper address of the Assessee and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was void ab initio due to several deficiencies in the satisfaction note. These included factual inaccuracies and a lack of specific findings linking seized material to the assessee's income.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Relying on the ITAT Standing Order (1963) and the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the "situs of the Assessing Officer" (Kolkata in this case) determines jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to both parties to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Kolkata, with condonation of delay.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Relying on the ITAT Standing Order (1963) and the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the "situs of the Assessing Officer" (Kolkata in this case) determines jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to both parties to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Kolkata, with condonation of delay.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and lacked due application of mind, rendering the entire search assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that upon the death of the principal, the GPA holder's powers expire, and thus Vijay Kumar Garg could not be considered a legal heir. Despite the AO being aware of the actual legal heirs, the assessment was erroneously framed against Shri Vijay Kumar Garg. Consequently, the assessment was declared void ab initio.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's business of exchanging soiled notes and currency denominations, and relied on a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the AO had duly verified the issues raised by the PCIT and had taken a possible view. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, particularly Explanation 2, was not justified as the twin conditions of an erroneous order and prejudice to revenue were not met.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in ABC Papers Ltd, ruled that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines appellate jurisdiction. Since the original AO was located in Madhya Pradesh, the Delhi Tribunal lacked the power to adjudicate the appeal.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Relying on the ITAT Standing Order (1963) and the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the "situs of the Assessing Officer" (Kolkata in this case) determines jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to both parties to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Kolkata, with condonation of delay.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, making the entire search assessment proceedings illegal and bad in law.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it failed to specifically inform the assessee of the exact charge leveled against them. Citing judgments from the Delhi High Court (Gregarious Projects Pvt Ltd, Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd) and Karnataka High Court (Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory), the tribunal concluded that such an unspecified notice renders the penalty unsustainable.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the land was a long-term capital asset as the assessee held a lien on it from the date of original acquisition by GDA. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement, including payments made for clearing encumbrances.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Relying on the ITAT Standing Order (1963) and the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the "situs of the Assessing Officer" (Kolkata in this case) determines jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to both parties to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Kolkata, with condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and lacked due application of mind, rendering the entire search assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and lacked due application of mind, rendering the entire search assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The tribunal noted that the issue regarding the disallowance of employee contributions to ESI/PF, if deposited beyond statutory due dates but before the ITR filing date, has been settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case. It was held that such dues must be deposited as per the due dates in the relevant statutes. However, the assessee was granted liberty to agitate the specific 'due date' compliance issue before the assessing authority.

The Tribunal held that Section 153A applies when a search is initiated against a 'person', not merely against premises. As the department failed to produce a search warrant in the assessee's name and the assessee was not the 'searched' person, the Section 153A proceedings were deemed invalid. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, making other merit-based arguments academic.

The tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the assessee's voluntary disallowance before applying Rule 8D, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Limited. It also deleted the addition of notional interest, stating that the Income Tax Act does not provide for taxing such income and the assessee had sufficient reserves, thus negating the claim of fund diversion, relying on the Shivnandan Buildcon Pvt Ltd judgment.

The Tribunal, following previous decisions by coordinate benches, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to re-examine the due date for PF/ESI deposits, specifically considering the date of actual salary payment, and to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present all necessary information.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the desired 80G registration/approval had been granted by the CIT(Exemptions) and that the appeal had consequently become infructuous. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, in the absence of any objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the transaction pertained to AY 2013-14, as the agreement, payment, and possession occurred in that year, and thus Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) (amended effective AY 2014-15) could not be invoked for AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal found the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 unjustified, ruling that the submission of the tax audit report before the completion of assessment fulfilled the purpose of the relevant provisions. Citing a Madras High Court precedent, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, concluding that no penalty under Section 271B was warranted under the circumstances.

The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, held that reopening initiated solely for the purpose of verification is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned reopening proceedings were quashed, rendering all other pleas on merits academic.

The tribunal, relying on a jurisdictional High Court judgment (PCIT & Ors. V. M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), held that the failure of the show cause notice to explicitly state the specific limb of the offence (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the overdue receivables from associated enterprises constitute an international transaction subject to transfer pricing adjustment, distinguishing the facts from previous years' cases. The claim for refund of excess DDT was dismissed based on a prior ITAT ruling.

The Tribunal, following previous decisions by coordinate benches, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to re-examine the due date for PF/ESI deposits, specifically considering the date of actual salary payment, and to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present all necessary information.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10 IC is directory, not mandatory, and procedural lapses should not override substantive benefits, especially when the assessee's intent to opt for the new regime was clear in the tax audit report and the form was filed during assessment proceedings. Based on judicial precedents and principles of beneficial interpretation, the assessee's claim under section 115BAA cannot be denied.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld this decision, concluding that the appeal before it also became infructuous given the prior settlement of the dispute.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The tribunal held the assessments invalid on two grounds: (1) additions for 'unabated' assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2) The Section 153D approvals were invalid as the Additional CIT granted common approvals without examining the entire assessment records separately for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 158BG of the Act was done in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, rendering the approval an empty ritual. The Tribunal found force in the Assessee's arguments regarding the grounds raised for the block period. The Tribunal noted that the approval was granted via a common letter for all assessees, on the same day, and was based solely on the Assessing Officer's confirmation without independent review of the draft assessment orders or records. This was found to be in violation of the principle that approval must be applied for each assessee and assessment year separately, as established in judicial precedents like PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar. Consequently, the additional ground raised by all assessees for all assessment years under consideration was allowed. Since the entire search assessment was declared bad in law and illegal, other grounds raised by the assessees and the Department were rendered academic and left open.