ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2018

The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.

The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 147 as the reasons for reopening were not based on tangible material but on suspicion and a 'borrowed satisfaction'. The assessment order was therefore cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the revenue were covered by the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts, which the CIT(A) had followed. Therefore, the revenue's grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified. The payments were made on a Sunday, a bank holiday, falling under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(j), and were also supported by documentation and business expediency.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to bill discounting charges, bogus purchases, and rent. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of income reversal to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal restored the issue of remuneration disallowance to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to submit a certified copy of the partnership deed. The vehicle maintenance expenses were also restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of business purpose.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting fresh evidence, as the appellate forum is empowered to collect evidence to ensure justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was void ab initio as the AO lacked independent application of mind and relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report. The reasons recorded by the AO were considered borrowed satisfaction and failed to demonstrate a live link between tangible material and the belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on a 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing's report without independent application of mind. The link between the tangible material and the belief that income escaped assessment was missing.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it violated the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.

The Tribunal held that the direction for special audit was illegal and invalid, as it was not in consonance with the statutory provisions and was issued to extend the limitation period. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that since interest payments on loans taken in earlier years for commercial property were allowed in those years, a similar deduction should be allowed for the current year. The disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on commission payments made to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence, as it was relevant and crucial. The Tribunal directed that the additional evidence be taken on record and the case be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the direction for special audit was illegal and invalid, as it was not in consonance with the statutory provisions and was issued to extend the limitation period. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that several disallowances made by the AO were not justified, particularly those related to reimbursement of expenses and cost of goods purchased/imported, relying on previous ITAT orders and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal.

The Tribunal held that for valid initiation of proceedings under Section 153C, the AO of the searched person must record satisfaction in their file that the seized documents belong to another person. Since this satisfaction was not recorded in the searched person's file, the proceedings under Section 153C were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.

The Tribunal held that the markup was only applicable to the specific expenses listed in Exhibit-A of the service agreements, which included employee costs and staff welfare. The Revenue could not unilaterally expand the scope of expenses subject to markup beyond what was contractually agreed upon.

The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the revenue were covered by the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts, which the CIT(A) had followed. Therefore, the revenue's grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Since the assessee had disclosed all related party transactions and maintained separate accounts for loans and sales, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) is taxable at 10% for all years under appeal as per Section 115A(1)(BB) of the Act, read with Section 90(2), as this rate is more beneficial to the assessee than the DTAA rate. Expenses claimed against FTS were disallowed as it's taxable on a gross basis.

The Tribunal noted that the tax authorities had treated the sale of the same land as agricultural land in the case of co-owners. The Tribunal found no distinction in the facts and circumstances between the assessee and her co-owners, suggesting arbitrary exercise of power by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction for AY 2013-14. However, for AY 2013-14, the addition should only be for fresh credit and not opening balance. For AY 2014-15, the addition for fresh loans was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee remained unrepresented for multiple hearings. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as the assessee remained unrepresented for multiple hearings. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction for AY 2013-14. However, for AY 2013-14, the addition should only be for fresh credit and not opening balance. For AY 2014-15, the addition for fresh loans was sustained.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits to be bona fide, considering his age, lack of other income sources, and the sale of his business and land. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10 lacs was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the remand report was inadequate and that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of any request for adjournment, inferring a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding the use of multiple year data and the claim of standard deduction were debatable at the time of filing the return. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the assessee's actions were bonafide.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided a specific opportunity to the assessee to place its evidence under Rule 46A. The CIT(A) acted mechanically by not admitting the bank loan certificate as new evidence.

The Tribunal found that the DRP had not analyzed the factual matrix in a justifiable manner and had not passed a speaking order. The factual matrix needed to be examined afresh at the DRP level.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is fully entitled to exemption under Section 54F as the entire sale proceeds were invested in the new residential flat. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the inclusion of the son's name in the property purchase does not deny the exemption.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was naive in believing her statement was sufficient proof and that tax authorities should encourage taxpayers to provide supporting evidence. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file fresh evidence and to address the source of the husband's income.

The Tribunal, following precedent, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if they wished to explain their absence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the precedent set by the Tribunal and confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The income was held to be governed by Section 44BBB(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order lacked relevant and cogent discussion regarding the grounds of appeal, particularly concerning the service of notices. Therefore, the order was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted additional evidence in violation of rules and had granted substantial relief without proper verification. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order lacked relevant and cogent discussion regarding the grounds of appeal, particularly concerning the service of notices. Therefore, the order was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claims were not adequately supported by evidence and that the assessee, being a widow, may have suffered due to incompetent advice. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.