ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2017

The Tribunal held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of interest on loans was not infirm, particularly in light of Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of interest on loans was not infirm, particularly in light of Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of interest on loans was not infirm, particularly in light of Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that there is no prescribed time limit for the receipt of foreign exchange under Section 10AA for export of goods/services, and directed the AO to grant the deduction. However, it upheld the disallowance of adjustments for risk profile and working capital differences.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on a director's motorcycle and related expenses cannot be disallowed in the hands of the company, and interest on income tax refund is taxable. However, disallowance for delayed payment of employee's EPF/ESI contribution is not permissible if paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to object to the DVO's report before the assessment order was passed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of an expense does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Following its own previous decision in a similar case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue's representative did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were not properly served on the assessee, making the appeals filed after receiving them through RTI within the period of limitation. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of interest on loans was not infirm, particularly in light of Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that interest-free funds were sufficient to cover investments in tax-free securities. The disallowance of interest under Rule 8D was deleted, but a disallowance of 0.5% of average investment income was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly directed to add Rs. 14,71,538/- as unexplained investment, as these items were accounted for by the assessee with supporting evidence. The Tribunal deleted this addition.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition related to cash found at the residence, accepting the assessee's explanation for safe keeping. However, the addition for undisclosed investment in watches was deleted due to flawed valuation by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities fell under the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry as specified in Section 80-IC. It further found that the assessee was situated in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, and fulfilled the conditions for claiming the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly directed to add Rs. 14,71,538/- as unexplained investment for elevators and DG set/air conditioners, as these were accounted for in the books and supported by invoices. The Tribunal also noted that the AO wrongly referred the matter to the DVO.

The Tribunal held that the TP adjustment on reimbursement of software costs was incorrect, as such expenses need not necessarily result in direct tangible benefits and the principle of consistency should be followed. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the adjustment on royalty payments, citing consistency with previous years' decisions.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the quantum appeal had been set aside for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the matter required re-visiting by the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and file submissions.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was issued before the recording of the satisfaction note, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly directed to add Rs. 14,71,538/- as unexplained investment, as these items were accounted for by the assessee with supporting evidence. The Tribunal deleted this addition.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition related to cash found at the residence, accepting the assessee's explanation for safe keeping. However, the addition for undisclosed investment in watches was deleted due to flawed valuation by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the TP adjustment on reimbursement of software costs was incorrect, as such expenses need not necessarily result in direct tangible benefits and the principle of consistency should be followed. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the adjustment on royalty payments, citing consistency with previous years' decisions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law because the show cause notice did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the penalty was levied on a different ground than initially initiated. The Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that profits on offshore supplies made on FOB basis outside India are not taxable in India. This decision was based on a High Court judgment that ruled similar offshore supplies were not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit can only be set off against tax payable under normal provisions when it exceeds MAT, not against MAT itself. Therefore, interest under sections 234B and 234C is leviable on the MAT payable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that the AO cannot make an ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out specific instances of expenses not being properly vouched, especially when the books of accounts are accepted.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of treating capital gains as business income back to the AO for reconsideration based on a Special Bench decision. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities fell under the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry as specified in Section 80-IC. It further found that the assessee was situated in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, and fulfilled the conditions for claiming the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had made a judicious assessment after proper inquiries and verification. The purchase of agricultural land was disclosed in the books of accounts since 1996-97, and the sale consideration was for exempt agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not invalid on the ground of improper approval. The Tribunal found that the Additional Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), who was the competent authority under Section 151, had duly recorded his satisfaction for reopening the case and issuing the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the case of CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd., where there was a complete absence of approval by the competent authority. The Tribunal noted that the Additional Director's satisfaction constituted the approval of the competent authority. Regarding the variance between the proposal and the reasons supplied to the assessee, the Tribunal noted that neither party provided the reasons supplied to the assessee. In the absence of this crucial document, the Tribunal could not verify the alleged variance. However, the Tribunal stated that differences in terminology would not invalidate the proceedings unless the additions made were not in consonance with the reasons recorded. Therefore, the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the CIT(A) to examine the variance and, if found to be immaterial, to decide the other issues on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had made a judicious assessment after proper inquiries and verification. The purchase of agricultural land was disclosed in the books of accounts since 1996-97, and the sale consideration was for exempt agricultural land.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to appear and make submissions, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order as per law.

The Tribunal held that profits on offshore supplies made on FOB basis outside India are not taxable in India. This decision was based on a High Court judgment that ruled similar offshore supplies were not taxable in India.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were incorrectly included or excluded in the transfer pricing analysis. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction under Section 10A for unbilled revenue and the consequential interest under Sections 234B and 234C.

The Tribunal held that expenses are deductible when they crystallize under the mercantile system, even if related to earlier years. The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition based on this principle and prior year precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly directed to add Rs. 14,71,538/- as unexplained investment for elevators and DG set/air conditioners, as these were accounted for in the books and supported by invoices. The Tribunal also noted that the AO wrongly referred the matter to the DVO.

The Tribunal found that verification of the assessee's claims regarding advances and material supplied was crucial. Since this verification could not be done at the appellate level, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had made a judicious assessment after proper inquiries and verification. The purchase of agricultural land was disclosed in the books of accounts since 1996-97, and the sale consideration was for exempt agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on estimated or ad-hoc additions, especially when substantial additions have been deleted. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after giving the assessee a due opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to ensure proper compliance.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits. The assessee was directed to ensure proper compliance before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to ensure proper compliance.