ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed without going into merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal falls within the ambit of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which prescribes a monetary limit for preferring appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT deleted the disallowance on professional charges paid to non-residents, noting the AO's admission in the remand report regarding DTAA provisions. The issue of director's remuneration was restored to the AO for re-examination. The disallowance for capital expenditure was upheld due to lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the AO did not properly record the satisfaction note in the file of the searched person. The seized documents were also not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society, registered under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of providing education, has a legal obligation to apply its income for charitable purposes. Therefore, it should be treated as a trust for Section 11 purposes, and its income derived from carrying out this obligation should be considered income from trust property. Consequently, exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society, registered under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of providing education, has a legal obligation to apply its income for charitable purposes. Therefore, it should be treated as a trust for Section 11 purposes, and its income derived from carrying out this obligation should be considered income from trust property. Consequently, exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society, registered under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of providing education, has a legal obligation to apply its income for charitable purposes. Therefore, it should be treated as a trust for Section 11 purposes, and its income derived from carrying out this obligation should be considered income from trust property. Consequently, exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee company could not be sustained as the peak credits from the pen drive had already been accepted as income in the hands of the director, Shri Chetan Gupta. Similar additions in group cases were deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the AO did not properly record the satisfaction note in the file of the searched person. The seized documents were also not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot discard the book results without rejecting the books of accounts. Since no defects were found in the assessee's books, the addition made on account of lower gross profit was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing confirmations, income tax returns, and bank statements from two lenders, who were assessed to tax. For the third lender, PAN and TDS details were provided. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the provision for gratuity was disclosed in the balance sheet and the failure to add it back was a bona fide mistake by the Chartered Accountant. The assessee had consistently added back gratuity in other years.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the AO did not properly record the satisfaction note in the file of the searched person. The seized documents were also not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the investments in house property were negligible and there was no incriminating material found during the search to suggest lavish expenditure. Therefore, the additions were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the AO did not properly record the satisfaction note in the file of the searched person. The seized documents were also not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a concession by the Revenue's representative that the tax effect was below Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the Transfer Pricing Officer's selection of the Resale Price Method was incorrect and that the functional and risk profiles of the two business segments were materially different. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to follow a previous coordinate bench decision for AY 2005-06 regarding website development costs.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the AO did not properly record the satisfaction note in the file of the searched person. The seized documents were also not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly verified the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the cash. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the AO did not properly record the satisfaction note in the file of the searched person. The seized documents were also not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Techprocess Solutions Ltd., Vapi Waste & Effluent Mgmt. Co. Ltd., and Choksi Laboratories Ltd. were not comparable to the assessee due to functional and asset dissimilarities. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to project/consultation fees and advertisement/sales promotion expenses.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without clearly establishing service of hearing notices on the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following its own previous orders in similar cases for earlier assessment years, decided to restore the issue of royalty payment to the file of the AO/TPO. This was to allow for a fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence and providing the assessee with an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were deleted by the ITAT in prior proceedings, the penalties could not survive. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly examine Shri Ravinder Singh Kohli, whose statement was crucial. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred due to a misunderstanding of the facts regarding the interest received from the developer. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were deleted by the ITAT in prior proceedings, the penalties could not survive. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the dominant and primary object of the assessee society was not profit-making, and its activities were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Techprocess Solutions Ltd., Vapi Waste & Effluent Mgmt. Co. Ltd., and Choksi Laboratories Ltd. were not comparable to the assessee due to functional and asset dissimilarities. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to project/consultation fees and advertisement/sales promotion expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the nature of technical fee payments was not sufficiently demonstrated and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Regarding royalty payments, the Tribunal ruled that they were revenue in nature, following High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's rejection was not justified, especially since the department had accepted the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for multiple years, indicating the genuineness of its charitable activities. The Tribunal found the facts to be similar to other cases where registration was granted.

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

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The assessee was given an opportunity to substantiate claims regarding improvement expenses, commission/court expenses, and cash deposits.