ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2016

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It found that the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lacs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which was made retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in imposing the penalty as no specific query was raised during the search regarding the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. The assessee had explained that the income was generated from business activities.

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 set aside the issues related to the most appropriate method for determining ALP and the selection of comparables for certain assessment years to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication. It also remanded the additional ground regarding deduction under Section 10A to the TPO/AO.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It ruled that the assessee's consistent use of the 'completed service contract method' of accounting, accepted in prior years, could not be rejected by the AO without demonstrating under-estimation of profits.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It found that the tax effect involved was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lacs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which was made retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as the Assessing Officer had not applied her mind to the information received, merely relying on a colleague's opinion. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

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 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, in the absence of any representation from the assessee and no request for adjournment, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction, but rejected the ground related to club expenses as it was not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal. Consequently, the department's appeal was dismissed, rendering the assessee's cross-objection infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The circular was held to be binding on the tax authorities and applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were time-barred as they were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were time-barred as they were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular also had retrospective effect.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation was allowable on moulds, dyes, and electrical installations as they constituted plant and machinery. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances on wages and swap/loan processing charges, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation was allowable on moulds, dyes, and electrical installations as they constituted plant and machinery. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowances on wages and swap/loan processing charges, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the tax evasion petition alone cannot be the basis for substituting the sale consideration recorded in the sale deeds. However, considering the vast difference between the sale deed consideration and the earlier agreed price, the matter was restored to the AO to examine the applicability of Section 50C.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it found that certain evidence regarding undisclosed stock was not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee without proper cross-examination.

The Tribunal found that notices were likely not served due to the assessee's change of address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, in the absence of any representation from the assessee and no petition for adjournment, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be restored to the TPO to provide the assessee with the benefit of working capital adjustment for transfer pricing. It also ruled in favor of the assessee on grounds related to natural justice and the implementation of DRP directions.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it found that certain evidence regarding undisclosed stock was not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee without proper cross-examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. It held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction, but rejected the ground related to club expenses as it was not pressed.

The Tribunal, following a previous order for an earlier assessment year, directed the AO to re-examine the issue of hire charges. The assessee was directed to submit all necessary details for proper verification.

The Tribunal found that notices were likely not served due to the assessee's change of address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that notices were likely not served due to the assessee's change of address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that revenue from software sales to customers outside India cannot be taxed as royalty under the Act. It also found that certain grounds became academic in light of other decisions and set aside some issues for fresh adjudication by the AO, while allowing others based on previous ITAT orders.

The Tribunal held that the entire credit for TDS should be allowed to the assessee, subject to verification that no credit for the same TDS has been claimed by the co-owners to whom the income was diverted. This decision followed a previous ITAT ruling.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to include 'Tak Machinery and Leasing Ltd.' and 'UBL Sales Ltd.' in the list of comparables, with adjustments for risk. 'Times Innovative Media Ltd.' was rejected due to functional dissimilarity.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed these appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it found that certain evidence regarding undisclosed stock was not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee without proper cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A were unsustainable as no incriminating material was unearthed during the search. The assessment for AY 2006-07 was deemed complete before the search, and for AY 2007-08, the assessment was also completed prior to the search. The Tribunal relied on the ruling in Kabul Chawla.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that rental income derived from letting out business assets constitutes business income, not income from house property. The authorities below were not justified in reclassifying the income.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular has retrospective effect and pending appeals below the specified limits may be withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account. However, it found that certain evidence regarding undisclosed stock was not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee without proper cross-examination.

The Tribunal allowed the additional ground, holding that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment framed in furtherance of the reopening was quashed.