ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct proper enquiry and verification regarding the 'suspense account'. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to this lack of verification.

The Tribunal restored the issue of capacity utilization adjustment to the AO/TPO for re-computation. It directed that working capital adjustment should be allowed for the SIM Card Assembly Segment, similar to the Software Development Segment, for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the TPO and CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the assessee's plea to consider the foreign AE as the tested party without proper justification. The Tribunal found that the foreign AE was indeed the less complex entity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption under Section 11 and depreciation, following its own prior orders and Supreme Court judgments. However, issues regarding loss on sale of assets and mobile expenses were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal filed by the Revenue should not have been pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the income shown as capital gains should be treated as such, not business income, and allowed the benefit of indexation. It also directed the deletion of the disallowance made under Section 14A due to lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal by the Revenue should not have been pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted as there was no positive evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision for an earlier assessment year in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The CIT correctly invoked Section 263 powers as the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry into cash deposits and Chapter VI-A deductions.

The Tribunal held that the TPO and CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the assessee's plea to consider the foreign AE as the tested party without proper justification. The Tribunal found that the foreign AE was indeed the less complex entity.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies based on functional dissimilarity and consistency with prior year's orders. One comparable was restored to the TPO for fresh verification, and another was also restored for examination. The disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that ICDs/CFS qualify as 'inland ports' for Section 80-IA deductions, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on discarded machinery if used in earlier years, and on assets not registered in the assessee's name if settled in their favor.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's estimation of the realizable value of DEPB licenses at 90% was based on a scientific basis and permissible under accounting standards. It also found the ad hoc disallowances for telephone, conveyance, and export promotion expenses to be without logic and justification.

The Tribunal, following the ratio of the Bombay High Court in B.R. Bamsi vs. CIT, held that the revenue's appeals contesting the deletion of additions made by the AO should be dismissed. The assessee's defensive plea to maintain the status quo, without seeking additional relief, was accepted.

The Tribunal held that since the facts for the current year were identical to the preceding year, and the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee, the Department's appeal had no merit.

The Tribunal held that the NAV method was inappropriate for a going concern and that valuation should be based on future earnings. However, as the TPO had not examined this aspect, the matter was remitted back for fresh determination of the arm's length price.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed both grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal observed that the 12AA Registration Certificate, valid w.e.f. 01.04.2007, was applicable for the assessment year under consideration. Since the AO treated corpus donations as revenue receipts due to the non-availability of the 12AA certificate at that time, and the CIT(A) considered the subsequent grant of registration, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal noted that the amendment to section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance Act (No. 2) Act, 2014, is effective from 01.04.2015. As the present assessment year is 2010-11, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on assets acquired from accumulated funds or income set apart for the trust's application. The ratio decidendi is that post-facto registration under section 12AA validates claims made during the period of such registration, and amendments to section 11(6) have prospective effect.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,29,15,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. However, it deleted an addition of Rs. 5,15,000/- related to property valuation, confirming the balance addition of Rs. 21 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the share transactions were a sham and a colorable device to avoid capital gains tax, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The AO's disallowance was restored.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals below a certain monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal, following the ratio of the Bombay High Court in B.R. Bamsi vs. CIT, held that the revenue's appeals contesting the deletion of additions made by the AO should be dismissed. The assessee's defensive plea to maintain the status quo, without seeking additional relief, was accepted.

The Tribunal held that there was no material on record to suggest an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act concerning the AMP expenses. The Tribunal found that the expenditure was a bonafide business expenditure and deleted the ALP adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions laid down under Section 80HHF, specifically regarding proof of actual exports. No evidence was produced to substantiate the claim, even after remand.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular which was applicable retrospectively. The Revenue could not demonstrate that any of the appeals fell under the exceptions for contesting appeals despite low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that ICDs/CFS qualify as 'inland ports' for Section 80-IA deductions, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on discarded machinery if used in earlier years, and on assets not registered in the assessee's name if settled in their favor.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were a camouflage for loans to avoid the provisions of Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal found that the alleged agreement to sell and its cancellation lacked genuineness and were not supported by adequate evidence.

The Tribunal held that the frequent and high-volume trading of shares indicated a business intention, not investment. Therefore, the income from these transactions was to be treated as business income, not capital gains.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the Senior Departmental Representative did not press it due to a CBDT circular mandating non-filing of appeals below a certain tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on computations not produced before the Tribunal and not confronted to the AO/TPO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after confronting the material to the AO/TPO and obtaining a remand report.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal held that certain selling and distribution expenses, trade discounts, and commissions should be excluded from AMP expenditure. It also allowed the appeal regarding the taxability of unutilized subsidies, following its own prior decisions affirmed by the High Court.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee provided explanations regarding the valuation method used by the survey team and the lump-sum estimation of stock. These explanations were not rebutted by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions for contesting cases with low tax effect as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.