ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the profit declared by the assessee from transactions with its connected concern was more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal found that the rate charged by the assessee to its sister concern was lower than that charged to an unrelated party, thus not triggering the provisions of Section 80IA(10).

The Tribunal accepted the Department's request to withdraw the appeals, noting that they were infructuous due to the low tax effect. The cross-objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal accepted the Department's request to withdraw the appeals, noting that they were infructuous due to the low tax effect. The cross-objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that royalty income is not effectively connected to the service PE, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The issue of income attribution to the PE was set aside to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, especially since cash deposits were found in the parties' accounts before issuing cheques. However, the penalty was deleted due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact offense under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions were met.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Section 14A disallowance is only applicable if there is exempt income. Since the assessee had no exempt income, no disallowance could be made.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO's additions were based on assumptions and guesswork without sufficient evidence, and that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted them based on the facts available.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal on both grounds. On the issue of commission expenses, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details of commission paid to foreign parties and argued that TDS was not applicable. The AO had disallowed the expenses for lack of genuineness and non-deduction of TDS. However, the judgment text provided does not contain the Tribunal's specific reasoning or findings on this issue, only that the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes and the grounds related to the commission expenses were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt. Regarding the addition under Section 50C read with Section 69A, the Tribunal held that Section 50C creates a legal fiction for taxing capital gains in the hands of the seller and cannot be extended to tax the difference between apparent consideration and stamp valuation as undisclosed investment in the hands of the purchaser under Section 69B. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that Section 50C is not applicable to the purchaser and that there was no evidence to show that the assessee made payments over and above the recorded sale consideration. Therefore, no addition of undisclosed investment could be made. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily rectified the omission before it was detected by the Assessing Officer and all relevant facts were available, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation and customer advances written back are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC as they are derived from the industrial undertaking. However, miscellaneous income arising from cancelled job orders was held not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.

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

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Senior DR did not press the appeals due to the circular. Consequently, all departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed.