ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2017

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 the assessee a due opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to ensure proper compliance.

The Tribunal restored the issue of commission payment to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, stating that the agreement and documentary evidence of services rendered are crucial. The issue of credit card expenses was also restored for reconciliation. The ground regarding ad-hoc disallowances was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the Site Restoration Fund account is not a time deposit and therefore, provisions of Section 194A are not attracted. Consequently, the assessee cannot be considered in default for non-deduction of TDS, and the penalty under Section 271C is not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid. It found that there was no new material or indication of escaped income, and the reopening was merely a change of opinion. The Tribunal also noted that the proviso to Section 147, concerning the disclosure of material facts, was not met.

The Tribunal noted that Circular No. 6/2010 clarified that Regional Rural Banks are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P from AY 2007-08 onwards due to the amendment of Section 80P by the Finance Act, 2006. The CIT(A) had not considered this circular.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the adjournment application on the grounds of illness. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Site Restoration Fund account is not a time deposit and therefore, provisions of Section 194A are not attracted. Consequently, the assessee cannot be considered in default for non-deduction of TDS, and the penalty under Section 271C is not maintainable.

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.

The Tribunal held that the Site Restoration Fund account is not a time deposit and therefore, provisions of Section 194A are not attracted. Consequently, the assessee cannot be considered in default for non-deduction of TDS, and the penalty under Section 271C is not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case and without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was condoned by the CBDT, rendering the revenue's grounds on this issue non-maintainable. The Tribunal also ruled that common expenses cannot be allocated to restrict the 10B deduction based on turnover, following various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notices issued by the AO and that the AO himself acknowledged the filing of returns and attendance of the assessee's representative. Therefore, there was no fault of the assessee to warrant the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case and without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, which held that royalty payments based on production are recurring and revenue in nature. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was condoned by the CBDT, rendering the revenue's grounds on this issue non-maintainable. The Tribunal also ruled that common expenses cannot be allocated to restrict the 10B deduction based on turnover, following various judicial precedents.

The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, deleting a portion of the disallowance after examining bills submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no valid grounds to interfere.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions regarding the reasons for non-compliance were not properly discussed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the sub-contractor's work involved construction and erection activities, which are specifically excluded from the definition of 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J. Therefore, tax deduction under Section 194C was appropriate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee's interest income exceeded its interest expenditure. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the notional interest addition, relying on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by not providing the creditor's PAN, confirmation letter, or sale agreement. Therefore, the addition as unexplained cash credit was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case and without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the notices issued by the AO and that the AO himself acknowledged the filing of returns and attendance of the assessee's representative. Therefore, there was no fault of the assessee to warrant the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal issue of reopening raised by the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue first before considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that the payments for SAP charges and intranet expenses were correctly treated as royalty and were chargeable to tax in India as per the Income Tax Act and the India-Germany DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the payments for SAP charges and intranet expenses were correctly treated as royalty and were chargeable to tax in India as per the Income Tax Act and the India-Germany DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the payments for SAP charges and intranet expenses were correctly treated as royalty and were chargeable to tax in India as per the Income Tax Act and the India-Germany DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening were not based on tangible material or a live link to the assessee's case. The reliance on a previous assessment order without any connection to the current donor or assessee was found to be based on surmise and suspicion.