ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2016

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10. Since the facts were identical and the Revenue had not presented any contrary material or decisions, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it violated CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular specifies monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to royalty, lumpsum fees, airfare, entry tax, and software expenses, following previous ITAT rulings. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on these grounds.

The Tribunal held that 'second leg' contracts, where services are provided to entities not directly engaged in oil exploration but whose services are used in such activities, are eligible for the presumptive tax treatment under Section 44BB. Amendments to Sections 44BB and 44DA were considered prospective.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. The assessee's cross-objection was also withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee attempted to justify the expenses, the lack of supporting bills and vouchers prevented conclusive proof of them being wholly and exclusively for business. Therefore, a 5% disallowance was deemed reasonable, reducing the original 10% disallowance.

The Tribunal held that 'second leg' contracts, where services are provided to entities not directly engaged in oil exploration but whose services are used in such activities, are eligible for the presumptive tax treatment under Section 44BB. Amendments to Sections 44BB and 44DA were considered prospective.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's preliminary objection. The appeal was dismissed as it was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the opening cash balance and the estimated household expenses. It sustained an addition of Rs. 40,000 for a cash deposit on April 13, 2009, for which no source was explained in the cash book.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue in a preceding year was set aside to the AO for verification of interest-free funds. Following this precedent, the current appeal was also restored to the AO for similar verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was arbitrary and without a legally sustainable basis. The assessees had discharged their burden of proof by submitting Transfer Pricing Reports, which were not rebutted by the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal found that there was a contradiction regarding whether the assessee had submitted documentary evidence to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after considering the evidence.

The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was incorrect, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) and not Section 144. This implies that subsequent compliance was considered good, and earlier defaults were overlooked.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2012-13, the AO correctly passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) as the conditions for Section 153C(2) were not met. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found no nexus between the additions made and the seized documents, quashing the assessments.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2012-13, the AO correctly passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) as the conditions for Section 153C(2) were not met. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found no nexus between the additions made and the seized documents, quashing the assessments.

The Tribunal noted the repeated non-appearance of the assessee and inferred a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of foreign travel expenses for the wife and father of the partner, as the assessee failed to provide independent documentary evidence to prove the business necessity of their visits. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding Section 80HHC deduction, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that if credits represented opening balances from previous years or were for purchases of fixed assets on credit, no addition under Section 68 could be made. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had estimated the profit at 4% of total turnover. Considering the Assessing Officer's estimation of 2.07% in the preceding year, the Tribunal directed the adoption of a Gross Profit rate of 2.10% for the current year.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide material evidence to prove inter-unit transfers and arbitrarily rejected the books of account. Disputing trading results solely based on a higher gross profit ratio without concrete proof is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that assessments already completed under Section 143(3) do not abate under Section 153A unless there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found and the original assessment was completed, the addition was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the entire bank deposits could not be assessed to tax without considering withdrawals. Given the assessee's business and the lack of other identified income sources or investments, the peak credit surrendered by the assessee should have been accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown correct business income in the operative part of the return and the discrepancy arose due to a software error in the schedules for set-off of losses. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversing the additions. For rental income, it followed a Delhi High Court decision. For deemed dividend, it found the AO failed to establish the assessee as a beneficial shareholder of 10% or more, and the amount could be advance rent.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C, as amended to include individuals and HUFs, was effective from 01/06/2007. Since the assessment year was 2006-07, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 194C.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide material evidence to prove inter-unit transfers and arbitrarily rejected the books of account. Disputing trading results solely based on a higher gross profit ratio without concrete proof is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that Section 153A does not authorize a de novo assessment for completed assessments where no incriminating material was found during the search. Since the assessment for the year was processed under Section 143(1) and no incriminating material was found, the addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2012-13, the AO correctly passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) as the conditions for Section 153C(2) were not met. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found no nexus between the additions made and the seized documents, quashing the assessments.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2012-13, the AO correctly passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) as the conditions for Section 153C(2) were not met. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found no nexus between the additions made and the seized documents, quashing the assessments.

The Tribunal found contradictory stands by the CIT(A) regarding turnover filters in comparable selection and noted inconsistencies in the transfer pricing study over subsequent years. Consequently, the matter was set aside for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2012-13, the AO correctly passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) as the conditions for Section 153C(2) were not met. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found no nexus between the additions made and the seized documents, quashing the assessments.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three specific companies (Apitco Ltd., Global Procurement Consultants Ltd., and TSR Darashaw Ltd.) from the list of comparables used for determining ALP, citing functional differences and previous rulings. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. and Chemical Metallurgical Design Co.Ltd. for similar reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the explanation to Section 80IA regarding works contracts is not applicable to Section 80IC. Therefore, job work charges should be treated as manufacturing activity for the purpose of Section 80IC deduction.

The Tribunal held that the explanation to Section 80IA regarding works contracts is not applicable to Section 80IC. Therefore, job work charges should be treated as manufacturing activity for the purpose of Section 80IC deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding nature of CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribes a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lacs for Revenue appeals to the ITAT. This circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 was squarely applicable to the appeal due to the low tax effect. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable to the present case. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on this circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments for plant and machinery and miscellaneous expenses, finding the assessee had not come out with clean hands. The issue of penalty for non-disclosure of equity share issuance was deemed premature.

The Tribunal set aside the issues concerning the determination of the most appropriate method and selection of comparables for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication. For AY 2010-11, the issue of Section 10A deduction was remanded to the TPO/AO, and other corporate issues were also to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal set aside the issues concerning the determination of the most appropriate method and selection of comparables for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication. For AY 2010-11, the issue of Section 10A deduction was remanded to the TPO/AO, and other corporate issues were also to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal set aside the issues concerning the determination of the most appropriate method and selection of comparables for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication. For AY 2010-11, the issue of Section 10A deduction was remanded to the TPO/AO, and other corporate issues were also to be decided afresh.