ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding customs duty on leased machines, finding it should not have been capitalized. However, it dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of countervailing duty paid in earlier years and written off in the current year, deeming it a prior period expense.

The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the taxpayer's trading segment transactions, overturning the TPO's substitution with TNMM. Regarding AMP expenses, the Tribunal found that the taxpayer was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before adjustments were made, thus remitting this issue back to the TPO.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee and therefore, it was liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents to support this decision.

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal noted that pending appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). It relied on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments stating that debatable issues regarding capital vs. revenue expenditure do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer was invalid because the notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the return was filed in response to the notice under Section 148. This violated the mandatory procedural requirement for a valid reassessment.

The Tribunal held that Article 25(2) of the India-US DTAA mandates India to allow credit for taxes paid in the US if the income may be taxed in the US. While the assessee claimed the interest was not taxable in the US, the exact provision under which tax was withheld was unclear.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is not leviable when payments to a non-resident are subject to withholding tax under Section 195, following the Supreme Court's decision in GE Parts Inc. Therefore, the AO was correct in not levying such interest.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was levied were subsequently deleted by the ITAT in earlier appeals, there was no basis for levying any penalty. Therefore, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that Article 25(2) of the India-US DTAA mandates India to allow credit for taxes paid in the US if the income may be taxed in the US. While the assessee claimed the interest was not taxable in the US, the exact provision under which tax was withheld was unclear.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not present and had not requested an adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal, following established legal principles and precedents, treated the appeals as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The appeals were dismissed as the assessee failed to pursue them effectively.

The Tribunal held that Article 25(2) of the India-US DTAA mandates India to allow credit for taxes paid in the US if the income may be taxed in the US. While the assessee claimed the interest was not taxable in the US, the exact provision under which tax was withheld was unclear.

The Tribunal, following established legal principles and precedents, treated the appeals as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The appeals were dismissed as the assessee failed to pursue them effectively.

The Tribunal held that Article 25(2) of the India-US DTAA mandates India to allow credit for taxes paid in the US if the income may be taxed in the US. While the assessee claimed the interest was not taxable in the US, the exact provision under which tax was withheld was unclear.

The Tribunal held that Article 25(2) of the India-US DTAA mandates India to allow credit for taxes paid in the US if the income may be taxed in the US. While the assessee claimed the interest was not taxable in the US, the exact provision under which tax was withheld was unclear.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the loan was accepted through entries, but there was no actual receipt of money through cash or cheque, and the funds were given via account payee cheque.

The tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on previous judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable for AY 2010-11 based on a Delhi High Court ruling in the assessee's own case. It also held that provision for bad debts is deductible on commercial principles for charitable trusts, following another Delhi High Court judgment.

The Tribunal found that the AO framed the assessment ex-parte and only summoned a few lenders. The Tribunal decided to set aside the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was levied were subsequently deleted by the ITAT in earlier appeals, there was no basis for levying any penalty. Therefore, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly discuss the evidence provided by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after confronting the assessee with inquiry findings and allowing an opportunity to produce the investor.

The Tribunal held that filing an appeal requires effective prosecution. Since the assessee failed to appear or prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide concrete findings that the assessee's activities were not genuine or not in accordance with its objects. However, it noted the serious allegation of misuse of Section 80G certificates and the assessee's lack of response on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to non-resident agents for airfreight were essentially payments to foreign airlines and were covered under Article 8 of the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Since these payments were not taxable in India, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly discuss the evidence provided by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after confronting the assessee with inquiry findings and allowing an opportunity to produce the investor.