ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2017

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn following the assessee's request and the no-objection from the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the AO's allegations regarding sham transactions and the lack of genuine business activity. The Tribunal noted the suspicious nature of transactions, including common addresses for buyers and sellers, and the absence of bank accounts, suggesting the company might be a shell entity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities, not just assembly, based on previous decisions in its own case. It also held that excise duty refund is eligible for deduction under section 80IB as it has a direct nexus with manufacturing.

The Tribunal held that the protective addition made by the TPO on account of AMP expenses using the BLT is not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for deduction of interest paid on custom duty, as it was paid in a subsequent financial year, citing Section 43B of the Act and a previous Tribunal ruling.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalties were imposed had been deleted in the quantum appeals, the basis for the penalties collapsed. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that even if the seized document was considered adverse, the assessee had already declared a taxable income higher than what was suggested by the document. The Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence of profit reduction in the company's books.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to compute the interest rate on delayed receivables using the LIBOR rate prevalent during the relevant period for the currency of the receivables (AUD/USD) plus suitable basis points, considering the AE's credit score.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the difference in the stock statement to the bank was explained by assets and advances duly reflected in the assessee's books. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing that no addition could be made solely based on a difference in stock valuation provided to the bank without a discrepancy in quantity or item-wise stock.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn following the assessee's request and the no-objection from the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals has statutory force and applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn following the assessee's request and the no-objection from the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appears to be not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries, including issuing notices, examining directors, and verifying bank statements. The Tribunal found the CIT had not demonstrated that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reassessment order was in accordance with law and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as the issues raised were not properly addressed in the show cause notice and the AO had correctly assessed the income in the hands of the firm.

The Tribunal decided that the assessment order was passed on a non-existent entity due to amalgamation. The Tribunal also addressed the grounds raised by the Department regarding transfer pricing adjustments and the deletion of Section 10A deduction.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to retain certain comparables for software development services and to allow working capital adjustments, restoring the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. and SQL Star International Ltd. based on their wage-to-sale ratios. However, it allowed the inclusion of Space Computer and Systems Ltd. after recalculating its wage-to-sale ratio to be within the acceptable range.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the difference in the stock statement to the bank was explained by assets and advances duly reflected in the assessee's books. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing that no addition could be made solely based on a difference in stock valuation provided to the bank without a discrepancy in quantity or item-wise stock.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the speculation loss, stating it was covered by a jurisdictional High Court decision. However, for the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal followed its own prior ruling in the assessee's favor, deleting the addition.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for interest expenses, directing deletion of disallowance based on available own funds. It also directed re-examination of interest income and directed the AO to re-compute and levy penalty after deciding the quantum addition.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, should be considered retrospective. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the deductee had paid tax or was liable to pay tax on the interest income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reassessment order was in accordance with law and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as the issues raised were not properly addressed in the show cause notice and the AO had correctly assessed the income in the hands of the firm.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the difference in the stock statement to the bank was explained by assets and advances duly reflected in the assessee's books. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing that no addition could be made solely based on a difference in stock valuation provided to the bank without a discrepancy in quantity or item-wise stock.

The Tribunal heard the CIT(DR) and perused the withdrawal application. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to consider 'R Systems International Ltd.' as a comparable, allowing for adjustments for differences in financial year endings. It also allowed working capital adjustments when comparing margins.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn following the assessee's request and the no-objection from the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn following the assessee's request and the no-objection from the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, should be considered retrospective. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the deductee had paid tax or was liable to pay tax on the interest income.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, should be considered retrospective. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the deductee had paid tax or was liable to pay tax on the interest income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries, including examining directors and issuing notices. The CIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, should be considered retrospective. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the deductee had paid tax or was liable to pay tax on the interest income.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, stating that a mere claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee's claim was considered bonafide due to the auditor's certificate.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, should be considered retrospective. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the deductee had paid tax or was liable to pay tax on the interest income.

The Tribunal held that EDCIL (India) Ltd. should be excluded as a comparable due to functional differences, despite the availability of its financial data in the public domain. It also excluded TSR Darashaw Limited, finding its primary business of share registry services to be functionally different from the assessee's business support services.