ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal observed the assessee's claim of double addition and the Ld. CIT(A)'s rejection. Concluding that the mistake appeared apparent from the computation of income, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to verify the claim and pass a speaking order after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses made by the AO was incorrect. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance after considering the additional evidence provided by the assessee, which demonstrated the genuineness of the expenditure despite clerical errors in TDS statements.

For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal restored the legal grounds concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes on the merits. For AY 2017-18, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, as its tax effect fell below the monetary threshold specified by CBDT Circular No.09/2024.

For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal restored the legal grounds concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes on the merits. For AY 2017-18, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, as its tax effect fell below the monetary threshold specified by CBDT Circular No.09/2024.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses made by the AO was incorrect. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance after considering the additional evidence provided by the assessee, which demonstrated the genuineness of the expenditure despite clerical errors in TDS statements.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion, holding that Section 41(1) was not applicable as no deduction was claimed or granted in earlier years for this liability. It also noted that Section 68 was not applicable as the money was received in a prior financial year, and the assessee continued to acknowledge the liability in its balance sheet, indicating no cessation.

The tribunal held that identical issues regarding the disallowance of mark-up on intra-group services had been consistently decided in the assessee's favor by co-ordinate benches in previous assessment years (2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19). The Tribunal found no change in facts and circumstances and concluded that the AO erred in not following the DRP directions and past decisions, thereby allowing the mark-up charged by the AEs as being at arm's length.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as prayed. It also granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if the VSVS application fails to mature, ensuring that the Registry will not insist on a separate application for condonation of delay for recalling the order, if filed beyond time due to delayed communication of the VSVS outcome.

The Tribunal, applying the principle of "LEX NON COGUT AD IMPOSSIBLIA," found that the delay was caused by technical glitches on the PF website, which prevented timely payment. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for circumstances beyond its control and directed the cancellation of the disallowance.

The Tribunal stated that the matter requires factual verification. If it is found that the payees have reflected the amounts as their income, then the disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) in the assessee's hands cannot be made. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee to explain the source of the Rs. 95,00,000 cash credit. While rejecting the initial grounds, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessee required to substantiate the facts within three opportunities.

The Tribunal held that amounts collected as penalties for illegal mining, where no license or contract was granted, do not fall under the definition of royalty under Section 206C. Consequently, there was no obligation on the assessee to comply with TCS provisions for such amounts. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default, and the demand raised by the tax authorities was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that amounts collected as penalties for illegal mining, where no license or contract was granted, do not fall under the definition of royalty under Section 206C. Consequently, there was no obligation on the assessee to comply with TCS provisions for such amounts. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default, and the demand raised by the tax authorities was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal ruled that the reopening of the assessment was unjustified as the AO failed to consider the assessee's income tax and wealth tax records, which sufficiently explained the source of the funds. The addition of INR 28,57,000/-, initially made under Section 69C by the AO and subsequently converted to Section 68 by the CIT(A), was found to be bad in law and therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that amounts collected as penalties for illegal mining, where no license or contract was granted, do not fall under the definition of royalty under Section 206C. Consequently, there was no obligation on the assessee to comply with TCS provisions for such amounts. Therefore, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default, and the demand raised by the tax authorities was directed to be deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's election to opt for the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if they are unable to avail the benefit of the VSV Scheme for genuine reasons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not managing the whole or substantially the whole of the affairs of an Indian company, thus Section 28(ii)(b) was not attracted. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's ground regarding the loss on sale of shares not being speculative.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's election to opt for the DTVSV Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if they are unable to avail the benefit of the VSV Scheme for genuine reasons.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The assessment order was based on Supreme Court precedents regarding the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation, making it a debatable issue not amenable to revision.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,49,084/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). This decision was based on the assessee's voluntary adjustment of 0.94%, which was derived from the actual cost incurred. The Tribunal opted to delete the addition to put an end to litigation, considering the smallness of the amount, without adjudicating other grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses made by the AO was incorrect. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance after considering the additional evidence provided by the assessee, which demonstrated the genuineness of the expenditure despite clerical errors in TDS statements.

The Tribunal held that the financial assistance received by the assessee from NRDA is capital in nature and not taxable. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, finding no specific instance of bogus or inflated expenditure.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer deleted the additions while giving effect to the Tribunal's earlier order, the penalty levied on these additions would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal ruled that additions related to the wife's income, including Rs. 75,000/- for AY 2012-13 and similar amounts for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, should be deleted as they originated from her independent business. However, additions for deposits in the assessee's son's account (Rs. 11,000/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 85,000/- for AY 2017-18) and daughter's account (Rs. 1,61,460/- for AY 2017-18) were sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition underlying the penalty had indeed been deleted by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT. Following the principle that a penalty cannot survive if the basis for its imposition is removed, the Tribunal cancelled the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the penalty, as the assessee failed to substantiate the manner of deriving undisclosed income as required by Section 271AAB(1)(a). The Tribunal restored the AO's action of levying penalty under Section 271AAB(1)(c).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the submitted documents were not considered. Consequently, the impugned first appellate order was set aside. The case was restored to the file of NFAC, Delhi, for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all issues and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the facts for the impugned assessment year (AY 2023-24) were identical to those in the preceding years. Relying on its own previous orders which granted the benefit of section 115BAB to the assessee, the Tribunal found no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the benefit of section 115BAB to the assessee, and the impugned order denying the benefit was set aside.

The Ld. CIT(A) found the transaction to be genuine, noting that the share valuation adhered to Rule 11UA, the investee company had accumulated profits at the time of investment, and all Companies Act provisions regarding share forfeiture were followed. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that mere relationship between parties or non-charging of interest does not automatically render a transaction sham. The ITAT concluded that the investment and subsequent loss were genuine, affirming the deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's health condition and subsequent demise, found it appropriate to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, providing the legal heir with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to respond to the notice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacks the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is mandated to dispose of appeals on merits. Considering the AO's notice under section 148 was sent to an incorrect address and name, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, requiring the assessee to provide the correct address.

The Tribunal held that Section 44BB is a computation provision and does not override the beneficial provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Since the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, its business income from vessel hire is not taxable in India as per the India-Singapore DTAA.

The Tribunal ruled that additions related to the wife's income, including Rs. 75,000/- for AY 2012-13 and similar amounts for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, should be deleted as they originated from her independent business. However, additions for deposits in the assessee's son's account (Rs. 11,000/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 85,000/- for AY 2017-18) and daughter's account (Rs. 1,61,460/- for AY 2017-18) were sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.

The Tribunal ruled that additions related to the wife's income, including Rs. 75,000/- for AY 2012-13 and similar amounts for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, should be deleted as they originated from her independent business. However, additions for deposits in the assessee's son's account (Rs. 11,000/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 85,000/- for AY 2017-18) and daughter's account (Rs. 1,61,460/- for AY 2017-18) were sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.

The Tribunal ruled that additions related to the wife's income, including Rs. 75,000/- for AY 2012-13 and similar amounts for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, should be deleted as they originated from her independent business. However, additions for deposits in the assessee's son's account (Rs. 11,000/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 85,000/- for AY 2017-18) and daughter's account (Rs. 1,61,460/- for AY 2017-18) were sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.

The Tribunal ruled that additions related to the wife's income, including Rs. 75,000/- for AY 2012-13 and similar amounts for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, should be deleted as they originated from her independent business. However, additions for deposits in the assessee's son's account (Rs. 11,000/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 85,000/- for AY 2017-18) and daughter's account (Rs. 1,61,460/- for AY 2017-18) were sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.

The Tribunal ruled that additions related to the wife's income, including Rs. 75,000/- for AY 2012-13 and similar amounts for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, should be deleted as they originated from her independent business. However, additions for deposits in the assessee's son's account (Rs. 11,000/- for AY 2016-17, Rs. 85,000/- for AY 2017-18) and daughter's account (Rs. 1,61,460/- for AY 2017-18) were sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide an explanation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the Rs. 15 lakh loan advanced to its Director, originating from FDRs and funds from M/s Sterling Auto Tech. Pvt. Ltd. The credit entry and its reversal were deemed self-cancelling. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 68, dismissed the ground relating to penalty initiation as premature, and held interest charges as consequential.

The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including authenticity certificates, purchase bills, and cash books, to explain the source of the jewellery and cash. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in reducing the penalty, as the assessee failed to substantiate the manner of deriving undisclosed income as required by Section 271AAB(1)(a). The Tribunal restored the AO's action of levying penalty under Section 271AAB(1)(c).

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the assessee's submissions, despite evidence that the assessee had provided a reply to at least one of the appellate notices. Concluding that the assessee was not non-compliant, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing for consideration of all facts and submissions in accordance with law.

The Tribunal condoned the 449-day delay in filing the appeal for AY 2020-21, accepting the assessee's health reasons. On merits, the Tribunal, relying on precedents, remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is instructed to re-examine the 'due date' for deposit of PF & ESI contributions, reckoning it from the month of salary disbursement, and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 449-day delay in filing the appeal for AY 2020-21, accepting the assessee's health reasons. On merits, the Tribunal, relying on precedents, remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is instructed to re-examine the 'due date' for deposit of PF & ESI contributions, reckoning it from the month of salary disbursement, and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely due to the absence of a delay condonation petition for a 9-day delay. Considering the assessee's circumstances and the inadvertent omission, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both the condonation petition and the merits of the appeal.

The Tribunal inferred that the deceased assessee was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from appearing in lower appellate proceedings. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the appellant, Sh. Varun Gupta, first proving his status as the legal representative.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not properly served with notice. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments supporting the PCIT's revision. Citing jurisdictional High Court judgments, it held that section 14A (Explanation) does not apply in the absence of any exempt income with retrospective effect. As there was no material indicating the assessee derived exempt income, the Tribunal reversed the PCIT's revisional directions.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's advanced age and stated lack of digital literacy as the reason for non-representation before lower authorities. Considering this and the Departmental Representative's non-objection, the Tribunal remitted both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to pass speaking orders on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard, and the assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that a lower GP/NP alone is insufficient to reject books of account without material evidence of falsehood. The Tribunal also noted that any addition would be eligible for deduction under Section 80IB.