HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

The Delhi High Court dismissed the department's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision on all five questions of law. The court found the issues covered by precedents, confirmed energy tax payable on collection, held interest on security deposits as a statutory liability, and allowed higher depreciation for UPS as integral to computers.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

The Tribunal held that the rectification order under section 154 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the assessee. Furthermore, it was held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) as its gross receipts were less than Rs 5 crores.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the sums of Rs. 3.5 lakhs from Dinesh Jethwani and Rs. 3 lakhs from Ram Kukreja were not received during the year under consideration, as they were already outstanding from previous years. Therefore, Section 68 of the Act was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that both CIT(A) orders were passed ex parte without independent findings on merits, necessitating a de novo adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for an opportunity to be heard and the liberty to raise additional grounds and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument that the firm had converted into a private limited company was dismissed as this fact was not intimated to the AO. Furthermore, no reasonable cause was provided for the non-compliance to statutory notices. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) orders for both assessment years were passed ex parte without independent findings on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte but observed that the assessee was given several opportunities to comply. However, considering the assessee's plea for one last opportunity, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a commission agent, is entitled only to commission income. The affidavits of farmers confirming receipt of cash payments for produce, along with statutory Mandi records, established the genuineness of the transactions. The addition made by the AO was considered commercially impossible.