ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2017

The Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) before rejecting the assessee's claim. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A can be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the DTAA, being beneficial to the assessee, would override Section 206AA, even if the non-resident recipient does not have a PAN. Therefore, tax deduction at the DTAA rate is permissible.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular, which mandates not filing or withdrawing appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit, is applicable retrospectively. The Supreme Court has also affirmed the retrospective application of such beneficial circulars.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10,00,000/-, has retrospective effect and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause, specifically the large volume of work and a director's judicial custody. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that while Section 40(a)(ia) does not apply to salary expenses, the expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee failed to establish the services rendered by directors and the relevance of the expenditure to the business.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had explained the defaults. The Tribunal noted that adjournment applications were filed and accepted, and on other dates, the assessee's counsel was present, with the Assessing Officer focusing on a related group case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had explained the defaults. The Tribunal noted that adjournment applications were filed and accepted, and on other dates, the assessee's counsel was present, with the Assessing Officer focusing on a related group case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had explained the defaults. The Tribunal noted that adjournment applications were filed and accepted, and on other dates, the assessee's counsel was present, with the Assessing Officer focusing on a related group case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had explained the defaults. The Tribunal noted that adjournment applications were filed and accepted, and on other dates, the assessee's counsel was present, with the Assessing Officer focusing on a related group case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had explained the defaults. The Tribunal noted that adjournment applications were filed and accepted, and on other dates, the assessee's counsel was present, with the Assessing Officer focusing on a related group case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for seeking adjournments and filing partial submissions constituted valid reasons for non-compliance. It found no justifiable reason for the CIT(A) to reject these explanations.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning lease rentals on computers, finding it covered by a previous year's order in favour of the assessee. The penalty appeal by the Revenue was also dismissed as the transfer pricing issue was remanded. However, the assessee's cross-objection challenging penalties on Section 43A additions and prior year expenses was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not fulfill the requirements of a speaking order as it failed to record the assessee's arguments or reasons for rejecting them. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for seeking adjournments and filing partial submissions constituted valid reasons for non-compliance. It found no justifiable reason for the CIT(A) to reject these explanations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for seeking adjournments and filing partial submissions constituted valid reasons for non-compliance. It found no justifiable reason for the CIT(A) to reject these explanations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for seeking adjournments and filing partial submissions constituted valid reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason for the CIT(A) to reject these explanations.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning lease rentals on computers, finding it covered by a previous year's order in favour of the assessee. The penalty appeal by the Revenue was also dismissed as the transfer pricing issue was remanded. However, the assessee's cross-objection challenging penalties on Section 43A additions and prior year expenses was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for seeking adjournments and filing partial submissions constituted valid reasons for non-compliance. It found no justifiable reason for the CIT(A) to reject these explanations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for seeking adjournments and filing partial submissions constituted valid reasons for non-compliance. It found no justifiable reason for the CIT(A) to reject these explanations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations for seeking adjournments and filing partial submissions constituted valid reasons for non-compliance. It found no justifiable reason for the CIT(A) to reject these explanations.

The Tribunal held that charging interest under section 201(1A) is mandatory and automatic, even if the recipient has paid the tax. The assessee failed to provide evidence to dispute the AO's calculation or to show that TDS was not required.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the software development segment, including E-infochips Bangalore Ltd. and Infosys Limited, based on functional dissimilarity and prior rulings. For Sonata Software Limited, the matter was remanded for verification of related party transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders and a subsequent AO assessment had accepted the assessee's manufacturing activity and eligibility for Section 80IC deduction.

The Tribunal held that since the reasons for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect and non-existing facts, the reopening was void and bad in law. The CIT(A) rightly quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not have an element of income and therefore cannot form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had explained the defaults. The Tribunal noted that adjournment applications were filed and accepted, and on other dates, the assessee's counsel was present, with the Assessing Officer focusing on a related group case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. The CIT(A) found that the AO made an ad-hoc addition without providing any specific instance of expenses not being vouched, artificially inflated, or bogus.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had explained the defaults. The Tribunal noted that adjournment applications were filed and accepted, and on other dates, the assessee's counsel was present, with the Assessing Officer focusing on a related group case.

The Tribunal held that trial production is distinct from commercial production and exemption is allowable from the date of commercial production. The assessee's letter to STPI indicating commencement of production for the global market on 30.04.2000 was considered valid.

The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 4 crores, on which the penalty was levied, was subsequently deleted by the ITAT, the penalty would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the law applicable for imposing penalty is the law in force at the time of filing the return. Since the assessee had offered the entire undisclosed income in the return filed under section 153A, which was accepted by the AO, the imposition of penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153C as no incriminating material was found during the search. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153C as no incriminating material was found during the search. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153C as no incriminating material was found during the search. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Safe Harbour Rules were not applicable for the assessment year in question. It also directed the TPO to re-examine certain comparables for software development services and to not apply Safe Harbour Rules for computing margins.

The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of three comparable companies (Kals Information System, Infosys Ltd, Wipro Ltd) from the TPO's analysis for software development services. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to re-examine the comparability of Bodhtree Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record his satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D. Given the assessee's substantial reserves and surplus, and no investments made during the year, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search operation to support the addition. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition based on the Delhi High Court's decision in Kabul Chawla.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the cash deposits, which were also available before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the provision for obsolescence of spares is not an ad hoc provision but a claim for normal wear and tear acceptable in the aeronautic industry. This claim is based on industry practices and the Companies Act depreciation rates.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing that the assessee be given an opportunity to prove that the payees had offered the commission income to tax and paid taxes thereon. If proven, no addition under Section 40(a)(ia) would be made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition as the assessee had produced the cash book of JLSSPL, which was not disputed. The cash found was explained as imprest given to Vaibhav Jaipuria from JLSSPL's account.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have conducted a discreet enquiry into the assessee's explanation regarding the cash. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee paid by the assessee constitutes acquisition of a business right, which is a capital asset. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on this expenditure as per Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. This was based on the fact that the additions on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the ITAT and subsequently confirmed by the Delhi High Court.