ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that the matter regarding the taxability of technical services needed to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer in light of the substituted DTAA and its Protocol. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions made by the AO, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning for benchmarking the international transaction to be reasonable.

The Tribunal found that the supplementary partnership deeds were dated significantly earlier than the assessment year in question, and it was unclear how remuneration was handled in the intervening years. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to accept the comparables considered in earlier assessment years for determining the Arm's Length Price, citing inconsistency in the TPO/DRP's approach. Regarding foreign exchange loss in AY 2009-10, it was held to be operating, while in AY 2010-11, foreign exchange gain was also directed to be treated as operating. Provisions and liabilities written back were directed to be considered operating.

The Tribunal held that the agents in India did not have the authority to conclude contracts for the assessee and were not acting in a manner that would constitute a PE. Therefore, no PE was established in India.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was share application money, not loans and advances, and shares were allotted in a subsequent year. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable, and the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and directed the CIT(A) to decide this issue. The CIT(A) was also instructed to reconsider the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the claimed exemptions.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering all documentary evidence.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to accept the comparables considered in earlier assessment years for determining the Arm's Length Price, citing inconsistency in the TPO/DRP's approach. Regarding foreign exchange loss in AY 2009-10, it was held to be operating, while in AY 2010-11, foreign exchange gain was also directed to be treated as operating. Provisions and liabilities written back were directed to be considered operating.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of promoting football are charitable and receipt of sponsorship/telecasting fees does not make it a business. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the substantive provisions of Section 54(1) regarding investment in a new residential house within the stipulated period are paramount. Procedural provisions like Section 54(2) should not strictly abridge these substantive rights if the assessee proves the investment was made.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not admitting the evidences filed by the assessee after the matter was restored. The issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision considering all evidences.

The Tribunal held that the matter regarding the taxability of technical services needed to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer in light of the substituted DTAA and its Protocol. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions made by the AO, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning for benchmarking the international transaction to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the share allotment was not genuine, as the applicant companies were controlled by an accommodation entry provider and their directors were employees of the provider. The significant premium charged on shares was also not justified by the assessee's business model.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing impaired stock at net realizable value was consistent and previously accepted by higher authorities. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing impaired stock at net realizable value was consistent and previously accepted by higher authorities. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to raise all legal and factual grounds in future years concerning similar additions.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing impaired stock at net realizable value was consistent and previously accepted by higher authorities. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing impaired stock at net realizable value was consistent and previously accepted by higher authorities. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds concerning the absence of a PE and the classification of software revenue as royalty, noting no change in factual position from prior years. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds concerning the absence of a PE and the classification of software revenue as royalty, noting no change in factual position from prior years. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the AE did not satisfy the 'make available' requirement of Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA. Therefore, the revenue received by the AE was not taxable in India, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was uncalled for.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim for depreciation was not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). It found no element of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the claim was a matter of applying the law regarding depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the AE did not satisfy the 'make available' requirement of Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA. Therefore, the revenue received by the AE was not taxable in India, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was uncalled for.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing impaired stock at net realizable value was consistent and previously accepted by higher authorities. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing impaired stock at net realizable value was consistent and previously accepted by higher authorities. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exceptions listed in the amended instructions were also found not to be applicable to these cases.