ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal held that TDS was not deductible on roaming charges paid to other service providers, as it did not constitute 'technical services'. The issue regarding TDS on discounts allowed to distributors was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's salary income from the same employer was accepted in previous assessment years. It held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the explanation properly and that the non-disclosure of salary in the ITR for the current year, when consistency in facts was demonstrated, was not sufficient to disbelieve the explanation. Consequently, the addition made u/s 68 could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 was not in accordance with the law. The procedures for substituted service were not followed, and the AO failed to establish proper service.

The ITAT held that despite 12A registration, the assessee, being a non-filer of income tax returns, loses the benefit of exemption under section 11 as per section 139(4)(a) of the Act. Noting that the CIT(A) provided relief without the AO's input on the additional evidence, and considering the charitable nature of the assessee, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-do the assessment, consider all documents and submissions related to deposits and cash, and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee admitted the bank account was not in the name of the proprietorship firm and was not shown in the books of account. The assessee also failed to provide supporting documents for re-deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine the seller, Smt. Veer Bala Agarwal, despite specific directions from higher authorities. Furthermore, the AO did not conduct necessary verifications regarding bank slips and property valuation as mandated. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without properly examining the trust deed, which, as verified by the Tribunal, did contain the required dissolution clause. Finding it necessary to provide another opportunity and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The appellant was directed to cooperate by furnishing all necessary documents.

The Tribunal identified a "communication gap" where the assessee did not receive proper notice from the CIT(A), resulting in an unjustified dismissal. Emphasizing the need for a fresh opportunity to be heard, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not confirm that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were actually served on the assessee or specify the mode of service. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, instructing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present submissions. The assessee was also directed to respond to notices served by the CIT(A) without fail.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that additions in assessments under Section 153A/153C must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As no such material supported the contested additions, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the issues were decided in favour of the assessee.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that additions in assessments under Section 153A/153C must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As no such material supported the contested additions, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the issues were decided in favour of the assessee.

To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and considering all evidence, with a condition for the assessee's cooperation.

To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and considering all evidence, with a condition for the assessee's cooperation.

Based on the submission from the assessee's counsel, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, thereby concluding the matter.

The Tribunal, considering the latest CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which sets the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals before the ITAT at Rs. 60 lakhs, found that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below this revised limit. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, upholding the jurisdictional validity of the assessment orders as incriminating materials were found during the search. The additions for unexplained jewellery (Rs. 46,45,491/-), accommodation entries (Rs. 56,64,131/-), and unexplained cash (Rs. 1 lac) were confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of assistance during the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, upholding the jurisdictional validity of the assessment orders as incriminating materials were found during the search. The additions for unexplained jewellery (Rs. 46,45,491/-), accommodation entries (Rs. 56,64,131/-), and unexplained cash (Rs. 1 lac) were confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of assistance during the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It ruled that assessment orders passed against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and constitute a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the AO was aware of the amalgamation but still completed the assessment in the name of the non-existent entity, making the assessment invalid.

The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS credit to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It directed the AO to allow the benefit of TDS credit reflected in Form 26AS to the legitimate beneficiary (the new proprietor) in whose account the relevant transaction amount is credited. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition had no basis in accounting principles or the Income Tax Act, as the assessee's audited financial statements showed no discrepancies, and the books of accounts were not rejected under Section 145(3). The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must first establish deficiencies and reject the books before estimating profits. Given the genuine difficulty due to the managing director's death, the addition was found to be unjustified and was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's evidence (PF challan and revised Tax Audit Report) indicating timely payment of the Provident Fund contribution. It decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the actual date of payment for June 2019. If payment is confirmed to be on or before the due date, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) would be warranted.

The tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) is sustainable, and that ESI/PF contributions must be deposited by the statutory due dates, not the return filing due date. However, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider whether the contributions were made in the month of actual salary disbursement.

The Tribunal observed that there was no conclusive evidence demonstrating that the notices issued under Section 142(1) were properly served on the assessee. The CIT(A)'s presumption of service, based merely on the service of the assessment order, was deemed insufficient to sustain the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) could not be upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material (pen drive data) was found from a third party's premises and not directly from the assessee, the assessment for the unsecured loan could only be carried out by taking recourse to Section 153C, not Section 153A. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs made under Section 153A was deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged an incorrect factual recording by the AO but held it didn't invalidate the belief for reopening, as the core information about bogus purchases remained. However, the Tribunal found the approval by the PCIT under section 151 to be mechanical, citing precedents, and thus quashed the entire reassessment proceedings for invalid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, as the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without merits adjudication. It directed the NFAC to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee to cooperate for expeditious disposal.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be made when the assessee has a mixed pool of funds exceeding investments, following Supreme Court precedents. It also allowed interest expenses and repair/maintenance expenses based on consistency with previous years and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be made when the assessee has a mixed pool of funds exceeding investments, following Supreme Court precedents. It also allowed interest expenses and repair/maintenance expenses based on consistency with previous years and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be made when the assessee has a mixed pool of funds exceeding investments, following Supreme Court precedents. It also allowed interest expenses and repair/maintenance expenses based on consistency with previous years and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the 380-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as genuine. Upon examining the evidence, including the agreement to sale, possession letter, bank statements, and the transaction being reflected in the vendor's audited financials, the Tribunal found the purchase of the property to be genuine. It concluded that the AO's denial of the exemption and the resulting addition were unjustified and bad in law, thus quashing the assessment order.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay to be genuine and condoned the delay. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be made when the assessee has a mixed pool of funds exceeding investments, following Supreme Court precedents. It also allowed interest expenses and repair/maintenance expenses based on consistency with previous years and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, noting the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and lack of examination of assessee's details, set aside the order. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee and proper examination of documents in line with natural justice.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be made when the assessee has a mixed pool of funds exceeding investments, following Supreme Court precedents. It also allowed interest expenses and repair/maintenance expenses based on consistency with previous years and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment orders under appeal were verbatim identical to those for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2014-15, where a Co-ordinate Bench had deleted similar additions. Finding no change in facts or circumstances for the current appeals, the Tribunal respectfully followed its earlier order and set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

The tribunal held that the provision for warranty was made on a scientific basis, supported by past trends and technically explained to the lower authorities without contradiction. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd, the tribunal directed the AO to grant the deduction for the warranty provision.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment orders under appeal were verbatim identical to those for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2014-15, where a Co-ordinate Bench had deleted similar additions. Finding no change in facts or circumstances for the current appeals, the Tribunal respectfully followed its earlier order and set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that despite the assessee's non-cooperation, the lower appellate authority must adjudicate the appeal in compliance with Section 250(6). Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee must plead and prove all relevant facts within three effective opportunities. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment orders under appeal were verbatim identical to those for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2014-15, where a Co-ordinate Bench had deleted similar additions. Finding no change in facts or circumstances for the current appeals, the Tribunal respectfully followed its earlier order and set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in 'Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF)' is binding. This judgment clarified that interest on compensation, including enhanced compensation, is taxable as 'Income from other sources' after amendments to Section 56(2)(viii) by the Finance Act, 2009.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment orders under appeal were verbatim identical to those for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2014-15, where a Co-ordinate Bench had deleted similar additions. Finding no change in facts or circumstances for the current appeals, the Tribunal respectfully followed its earlier order and set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal granted a further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order after providing a proper opportunity of hearing and considering all evidence. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate, the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass an order strictly in accordance with law.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete disallowances related to section 14A (as no exempt income was earned), miscellaneous foreign expenses, advertisement & sales promotion expenses, consumption debtors, and 50% software expenses. The ITAT also upheld the CIT(A)'s directions to the AO to verify claims regarding rental income and leave encashment under section 43B. The tribunal found the Revenue's arguments untenable and dismissed both appeals.

The Tribunal, referring to CBDT instructions (F.No.225/40/2021/ITA-II dated March 4, 2021, and March 12, 2021), clarified that approval for Section 148 notices in such cases must be from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT), not the PCIT. Since the approval in this case was granted by the PCIT, the Tribunal held that the approval was bad in law, rendering the Section 148 notice and the consequent assessment invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reopening under Section 148 and the assessment order.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete disallowances related to section 14A (as no exempt income was earned), miscellaneous foreign expenses, advertisement & sales promotion expenses, consumption debtors, and 50% software expenses. The ITAT also upheld the CIT(A)'s directions to the AO to verify claims regarding rental income and leave encashment under section 43B. The tribunal found the Revenue's arguments untenable and dismissed both appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It restored the issue of ALV determination for both assessees for the relevant assessment year to the files of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to consider the matter and decide afresh in accordance with the directions issued by the CIT(A) on 21.05.2007 for AY 2004-05.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It restored the issue of ALV determination for both assessees for the relevant assessment year to the files of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to consider the matter and decide afresh in accordance with the directions issued by the CIT(A) on 21.05.2007 for AY 2004-05.