ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2018

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the order. The penalty was deleted because the additions forming its basis were themselves deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the laptop data was unreliable and inconsistently used by the AO. The AO failed to establish the laptop data as a duplicate set of books of accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude Infosys BPO Ltd., TCS E-serve Limited, and TCS E-serve International Ltd. as comparables. It found that these companies were functionally dissimilar and engaged in higher-end services compared to the taxpayer's routine call center operations.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA. The grounds for rejection were based on general observations about the trust deed's aims and objects.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issue without considering the evidence filed by the assessee and that no proper verification was conducted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is applicable only when credits are found in the assessee's books of account. A bank account statement is not considered the assessee's book of account. Therefore, additions under Section 68 were not tenable.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is applicable only when credits are found in the assessee's books of account. A bank account statement is not considered the assessee's book of account. Therefore, additions under Section 68 were not tenable.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is applicable only when credits are found in the assessee's books of account. A bank account statement is not considered the assessee's book of account. Therefore, additions under Section 68 were not tenable.

The Tribunal found that subsequent to the CIT(A)'s order, further inquiries and assessment proceedings (including a search) provided additional details from the investors. The Assessing Officer in the later assessment accepted the returned income without making additions on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without ensuring proper service of notice and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal also noted that the ex-parte assessment was made without proper service of notice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous without deciding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment order was not set aside in toto, and the CIT(A) was obligated to decide the jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. It also held that provision for fringe benefit tax cannot be added to book profit under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as notices were not served at the correct address. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the order. The penalty was deleted because the additions forming its basis were themselves deleted.

The Tribunal found that it was not established that any notice of hearing was served on the assessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal could not verify the assessee's submission regarding the letter dated 18/01/16 as it lacked acknowledgement of receipt by the AO and no such ground was raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the laptop data was unreliable and inconsistently used by the AO. The AO failed to establish the laptop data as a duplicate set of books of accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the laptop data was unreliable and inconsistently used by the AO. The AO failed to establish the laptop data as a duplicate set of books of accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the laptop data was unreliable and inconsistently used by the AO. The AO failed to establish the laptop data as a duplicate set of books of accounts.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the conversion of stock-in-trade to investment was legal and valid had not been decided. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to first decide this aspect before addressing the valuation method.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude investments in OMIFCO, Oman from the computation of disallowance under Section 14A. The dividend income from OMIFCO was considered taxable in India and eligible for DTAA benefits, making Section 14A inapplicable.

The ITAT noted that a coordinate bench had previously quashed the order passed by the CIT under Section 263. Consequently, the assessment framed and the subsequent appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient non-interest bearing funds to cover the presumed utilization of unsecured loans in projects. The AO did not provide evidence of borrowed funds being used for non-business purposes or for projects pending completion.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient non-interest bearing funds to cover the presumed utilization of unsecured loans in projects. The AO did not provide evidence of borrowed funds being used for non-business purposes or for projects pending completion.

The Tribunal held that Noida and Greater Noida Authorities are corporations established by a State Act and are therefore entitled to exemption from TDS under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) as per CBDT Notification No. 3489. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that Noida and Greater Noida Authorities are corporations established by a State Act and are therefore entitled to exemption from TDS under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) as per CBDT Notification No. 3489. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow the final outcome of the Supreme Court case. The assessee's appeals were dismissed, subject to the directions given regarding the pending Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars as all details were available to the AO. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal found no basis for penalty.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable based on fair market value, legitimate business needs, or benefit derived by the assessee, as required by Section 40A(2)(b). Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds of maintainability was unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the excise duty refund related to materials used for construction and should reduce the capital cost, not be treated as business income. The business was not yet set up during the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow the final outcome of the Supreme Court case. The assessee's appeals were dismissed, subject to the directions given regarding the pending Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding cash gift from her mother, supported by affidavits, was not properly considered. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the methodology for calculating peak credit, as accepted in previous assessment years for the same assessee, should be followed. The AO's revised calculation, excluding certain debits, was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investor company. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation to discharge its initial onus under Section 68, and the assessment of the investor company under Section 143(3) without additions also supported the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow the final outcome of the Supreme Court case. The appeals were dismissed, subject to the directions made under Section 158A.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on estimation and business prudence, and the Assessing Officer failed to establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. It found that the technical know-how was related to the assessee's existing business and the payment was linked to sales, supporting its classification as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The Tribunal clarified that this dismissal would not create a precedent for subsequent years with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was granted liberty to pray for recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the methodology for calculating peak credit, as accepted in previous assessment years for the same assessee, should be followed. The AO's revised calculation, excluding certain debits, was not justified.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to relief granted in set aside proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow the final outcome of the Supreme Court case. The assessee's appeals were dismissed, subject to the directions given regarding the pending Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the comparability of government companies as comparables and to re-compute the interest on receivables as per the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the share capital as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the investor company, and the assessment of the investor company itself had been completed without additions on this issue.

The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. It found that the technical know-how was related to the assessee's existing business and the payment was linked to sales, supporting its classification as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition based on estimation without rejecting the books of account, which is not permissible. The Tribunal found no concealment of income to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice of hearing does not automatically admit an appeal. Non-appearance by the assessee renders the appeal defective and inadmissible for want of prosecution.