ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered, aligning with High Court precedents. Strategic investments in group companies were also excluded from disallowance calculations.

The Tribunal found that the reference to the Valuation Officer was indeed made under Section 142A of the Act, as evidenced by the valuation report. The Tribunal limited its adjudication to this factual verification, as per the recalled ground.

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered, aligning with High Court precedents. Strategic investments in group companies were also excluded from disallowance calculations.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had fulfilled the conditions of Section 271AAA(2) by disclosing the income, explaining the manner of earning it, and paying the due taxes. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the order under Section 263 was based on a diary found with a third party, which was previously held insufficient by the Tribunal to infer undisclosed income. Therefore, the Section 263 order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions of Section 271AAA(2) by disclosing the income, explaining the manner of earning it, and paying the taxes. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of shareholders and their confirmations. The AO failed to bring any adverse material on record to discredit the evidence, despite conducting inquiries.

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered, aligning with High Court precedents. Strategic investments in group companies were also excluded from disallowance calculations.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the small amount involved and in light of the Department's dismissed appeal.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's adjustment for delayed receivables was not adequately analyzed and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh consideration. The tribunal noted that while working capital adjustment was allowed, the specifics of its calculation and the interest rate used were unclear.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments are not applicable to transactions with non-AEs and remitted the matter for fresh determination. It also deleted the disallowance of administrative fees based on a previous year's precedent and directed depreciation on computer peripherals at the higher rate claimed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's attempt to rectify the order allowing credit for seized cash as self-assessment tax was invalid as the issue was debatable. It also ruled that interest under Section 234B should not be charged on the seized cash from the date of seizure until assessment.

The Tribunal held that an assessment framed against a non-existent company is not sustainable in law. The assessment order passed in the name of the amalgamated company was quashed as invalid.

The Tribunal held that the order under Section 263 was based on a diary found with a third party, which was previously held insufficient by the Tribunal to infer undisclosed income. Therefore, the Section 263 order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's medical issues as a reasonable cause. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal held that revenue from the sale of 'off-the-shelf' software is not taxable in India as royalty, following the decision in DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd. For installation, commissioning, and maintenance of software, the Tribunal directed that income be computed under Section 44BB of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in ONGC Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative did not press the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

The Tribunal held that the penalty did not survive as the basis for its levy was removed due to deleted additions and one issue being restored for fresh adjudication. For other assessment years, the Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest and Section 14A expenses based on its prior decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals ex-parte after hearing the Department's representative and perusing the records. The assessee's request to treat the appeals as withdrawn was accepted.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals ex-parte after hearing the Department's representative and perusing the records. The assessee's request to treat the appeals as withdrawn was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the excise duty refund was part of the profit derived from the industrial undertaking, making the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. Consequently, the basis for the penalty no longer existed.

The Tribunal held that an addition under section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material found from the assessee's premises. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Kabul Chawla, the Tribunal found the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A to be invalid.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT to ₹10 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the penalty did not survive as the basis for its levy was removed due to deleted additions and one issue being restored for fresh adjudication. For other assessment years, the Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest and Section 14A expenses based on its prior decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full deduction under Section 54, as the property was purchased jointly with his son and the entire capital gain was invested. The intention of Section 54 is to encourage investment in residential property, and the deduction should not be denied on hyper-technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on surmises and conjectures, as no specific discrepancies were pointed out. The Tribunal noted that the expenses were incurred in the normal course of business and the books were audited.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that bank guarantee commission is not subject to withholding tax under Section 194H as it does not fall under the specified clauses. The decision followed previous rulings by the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal itself in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the full value of consideration received by the assessee cannot be substituted by the fair market value determined by the Valuation Officer, especially when Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that bank guarantee commission is not subject to withholding tax under Section 194H as it does not fall under the specified clauses. The decision followed previous rulings by the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal itself in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the penalty did not survive as the basis for its levy was removed due to deleted additions and one issue being restored for fresh adjudication. For other assessment years, the Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest and Section 14A expenses based on its prior decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the penalty as the enhancement in income was made by the CIT(A). Following the Allahabad High Court's decision, the penalty proceedings should have been initiated by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the retracted statement, though an admission, needs corroboration. It also found that the Rs. 5 lacs cash receipt was not adequately explained by the assessee and upheld the addition on this amount.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine for non-compliance or ex parte. The CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeals on merits, even if the assessee is absent.

The Tribunal held that a partial disallowance of expenses made on an estimate basis does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court does not constitute a declaration of law and cannot override the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessee's past exemptions, affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court, should be followed.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court does not constitute a declaration of law and cannot override the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessee's past exemptions, affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court, should be followed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case. The assessee is directed to appear and provide necessary details without adjournment.