ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2017

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was essential for rendering justice. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and set aside the issues in dispute to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/- with retrospective effect. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed without going into merits.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of Section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The assessment was based on conjectures and surmises, not on any seized material.

The Tribunal held that the interest-free loans were given for business considerations and commercial expediency, especially since the subsidiary was the assessee's own company. Following precedents, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments can only be made for transactions between associated enterprises (AEs) and not for non-AE transactions. It also directed that the +/- 5% tolerance band under Section 92C(2) should be applied to the transaction price, not the profit.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision in a similar case, directing the AO to decide the assessee's objections and provide an opportunity for a hearing before proceeding with the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 40A(3) by respectfully following the precedent of CIT vs. Banwarilal Banshidhar. For the unexplained investment, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce documents.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO incorrectly applied amended provisions of Section 194C and that the liability for TDS was not on the assessee in certain cases. The cessation of liability and prior period expenses were also correctly treated by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the IT Rules and without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also found the reduction in addition to be arbitrary without identifying beneficiaries or the nature of accommodation entries.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed addition was less than the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to apply his independent mind and relied mechanically on information received. The reasons recorded were vague and lacked proper application of mind, making the assessment void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the protective addition in the assessee's hands could not be deleted prematurely. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to first ascertain if the substantive addition in the husband's hands had reached finality.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the TPO had the jurisdiction to examine AMP expenses as an international transaction, especially after the insertion of Section 92CA(2A). However, the matter of whether AMP expenses constitute an international transaction was restored to the TPO for fresh determination in light of High Court judgments.