ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is a specific deduction provided by statute and is not restricted to the actual provision made for bad and doubtful debts. The AO was not justified in disallowing the claim.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Act. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Income from software sales was not taxable as royalty. Income from installation, commissioning, and training inextricably linked to software sales was also not taxable in India. Standalone training income was to be taxed under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Income from software sales was not taxable as royalty. Income from installation, commissioning, and training inextricably linked to software sales was also not taxable in India. Standalone training income was to be taxed under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Income from software sales was not taxable as royalty. Income from training services, inextricably linked to software sales, was also not taxable as fee for included services.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Income from software sales was not taxable as royalty. Income from training services, inextricably linked to software sales, was also not taxable as fee for included services.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Income from software sales was not taxable as royalty. Income from training services, inextricably linked to software sales, was also not taxable as fee for included services.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Income from software sales was not taxable as royalty. Income from training services, inextricably linked to software sales, was also not taxable as fee for included services.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for interest deduction, while not allowable under Section 40(b)(iv), could be considered under Section 24(b) if the partners' capital was used for acquiring the property. Since there was a possible view and judicial precedent supporting the claim, it was not considered furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by a previous ITAT decision where a similar loss incurred during business activities was allowed as a deduction. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.