ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2016

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the AO, similar to a previous identical case. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed as being bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the payments were duly reflected in the assessee's books or that the seized document entries were not sufficiently linked to the assessee's income for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the payments were duly reflected in the assessee's books or that the seized document entries were not sufficiently linked to the assessee's income for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of commission income at 2% was reasonable and appropriate. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the commission at 2% and grant a deduction of 0.5%.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's preliminary objection. It held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as they violated the CBDT circular, which has statutory force under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) provides an exception where penalty is not leviable if the assessee proves good faith and due diligence in determining the ALP. The Tribunal found that the assessee acted in a bona fide manner and the TPO's determination of Nil ALP was not tenable, thus deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 112(1) is applicable to non-residents and does not exclude those who avail the benefit of the first proviso to Section 48. Therefore, the tax rate of 10% is correctly applicable.

The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 133A, as such statements do not have evidentiary value without corroborative material. Following previous judgments and CBDT instructions, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of commission income at 2% was reasonable and appropriate. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the commission at 2% and grant a deduction of 0.5%.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. It found that the assessee's decision to forgo the loss was not due to concealment of income or inaccurate particulars, but because the loss had become infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that a similar case was decided by the Pr.CIT, and without delving into the merits, restored the matter to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order considering the previous decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for not meeting the minimum tax effect threshold. The delay in the assessee's cross-objection was condoned, and the cross-objection was dismissed as the assessee chose not to press it.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of commission income at 2% was reasonable and appropriate. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the commission at 2% and grant a deduction of 0.5%.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the additional grounds of appeal concerning the right to cross-examine third parties. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering these grounds and providing an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim due to an inadvertent mistake, which is subsequently revised and the tax paid, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals related to the initial rectification rejection were infructuous due to a subsequent rectification order. However, it directed that the CIT(A) should not be influenced by prior observations when deciding the appeal against the subsequent order. The penalty orders under Section 271C were found to be barred by limitation and were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal against the penalty deletion had become infructuous. This was because the underlying additions that led to the penalty were no longer valid after the quantum appeal was allowed for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals related to the initial rectification rejection were infructuous due to a subsequent rectification order. However, it directed that the CIT(A) should not be influenced by prior observations when deciding the appeal against the subsequent order. The penalty orders under Section 271C were found to be barred by limitation and were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for donations, finding that the donors were not confronted to the assessee and that the donations were already shown as income. It also upheld the deletion of additions for loans and advances, as the recipient society was also registered under Section 12A and the advances were refunded.

The Tribunal held that the absence of competent staff and NSDL facilities constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was not imposable as per Section 273B.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition on unaccounted sales as it was based on guesswork. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for legal expenses, finding that the genuineness was not disputed and the bills were received in the current year, crystallizing the liability.

The Tribunal held that the appeals related to the initial rectification rejection were infructuous due to a subsequent rectification order. However, it directed that the CIT(A) should not be influenced by prior observations when deciding the appeal against the subsequent order. The penalty orders under Section 271C were found to be barred by limitation and were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 Lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal held that the appeals related to the initial rectification rejection were infructuous due to a subsequent rectification order. However, it directed that the CIT(A) should not be influenced by prior observations when deciding the appeal against the subsequent order. The penalty orders under Section 271C were found to be barred by limitation and were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals related to the initial rejection of Section 154 applications were infructuous due to subsequent rectification. However, the penalty orders under Section 271C were quashed as they were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was to be dismissed due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified by CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was to be decided on merits, and certain additions under Section 68 were deleted based on the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeals related to the initial rectification rejection were infructuous due to a subsequent rectification order. However, it directed that the CIT(A) should not be influenced by prior observations when deciding the appeal against the subsequent order. The penalty orders under Section 271C were found to be barred by limitation and were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vague as it did not specify how the information was late. Furthermore, since the TPO was satisfied with the information provided and no transfer pricing adjustment was made, the delay was considered a technical breach, not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was deemed to be recorded due to the insertion of Explanation 7(1B) to Section 271(1)(c). However, the penalty for the deemed sale proceeds was set aside for fresh examination by the AO, while the penalty for commission expenses was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the application. The society's activities of maintaining a temple and Ghat for public religious rituals are charitable in nature and fall under general public utility. The CIT overlooked evidence of the society's efforts and recommendations from authorities.

The Tribunal held that the turnover filter used by the TPO was inappropriate and directed the inclusion of a comparable company. Regarding another comparable, the Tribunal found errors in the DRP's computation and directed a recomputation of its margin, excluding only direct expenses attributable to rental income.

The Tribunal held that the joint venture arrangement did not constitute an AOP. Following a CBDT circular, it was found that each member was independently responsible for their part of the work, bore their own risks and costs, and earned profits or incurred losses based on their specific scope.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance related to TDS, finding that payments to ad-hoc camera attendants did not constitute 'work' under Section 194C. It also upheld the deletion of the disallowance for interest on delayed service tax payments, deeming it compensatory and allowable expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the joint venture arrangement did not constitute an AOP. Following a CBDT circular, it was found that each member was independently responsible for their part of the work, bore their own risks and costs, and earned profits or incurred losses based on their specific scope.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of prescribing and enforcing standards through accreditation, involving fee collection, do not constitute trade, business, or commercial activity. The fees collected are incidental and not for profit motive, aligning with the charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee for leased line connectivity and managed services to an overseas entity do not constitute royalty or fees for technical services. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The tax effect in this appeal was less than this limit.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind independently to the information received from the Investigation Wing before reopening the assessment. The reopening was based on a mechanical belief in the report without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the joint venture arrangement did not constitute an AOP. Following a CBDT circular, it was found that each member was independently responsible for their part of the work, bore their own risks and costs, and earned profits or incurred losses based on their specific scope.

The Tribunal noted that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 Lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the joint venture arrangement did not constitute an AOP. Following a CBDT circular, it was found that each member was independently responsible for their part of the work, bore their own risks and costs, and earned profits or incurred losses based on their specific scope.