ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the gift and the creditworthiness of the donor. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal on the classification of capital gains.

The Tribunal held that since the original orders determining the tax liability were set aside, the penalties levied under Section 221(1) based on those orders had no basis. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders after the consequential orders under Section 201 r.w.s. 201(1A) were passed.

The Tribunal held that since the original orders determining the tax liability were set aside, the penalties levied under Section 221(1) based on those orders had no basis. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh orders after the consequential orders under Section 201 r.w.s. 201(1A) were passed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding capital gains, finding no infirmity in the computation. However, the addition of Rs. 37 lakhs (gift) was set aside and remanded to the AO for further verification of genuineness and occasion.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A), set aside the ex-parte order. It directed the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an appropriate order.

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 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 quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the AO's satisfaction regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars was not specific, and the additions were largely based on estimation or reconciliation issues.

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 the assessee's activities did not constitute trade, commerce, or business, and therefore the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted. The CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption was upheld.

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 set aside the issue of determining correct comparables for BIIS products back to the TPO, directing that if no exclusive comparables are found, both segments should be consolidated with necessary adjustments. The disallowance of brand building expenses was allowed in favor of the assessee, following previous year's precedents.

The Tribunal accepted the Department's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The cross-objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed.

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 due to low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals and related cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal accepted the Department's request to withdraw the appeals, considering 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 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 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, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. 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 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 Section 271AAA is applicable when a search has been initiated and the addition is on account of undisclosed income, making Section 271(1)(c) inapplicable. The penalty was also not leviable on estimated additions.

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 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 Vapi Waste & Effluent Management Co. Ltd. was not a valid comparable for routine marketing support services due to functional differences and revenue sources. Several grounds were not pressed or were considered academic.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of creditworthiness and genuineness of sales, including party confirmations and quantitative stock details. The sales were also already included in the company's turnover.

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 held that the addition made by the AO on account of non-payment of excise duty was deleted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had entertained fresh evidence in the form of an order from the Commissioner of Central Excise.

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 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 dismissed the appeals as infructuous, accepting the Department's request to withdraw them due to low tax effect. Cross objections filed by assessees were also dismissed.

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 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 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 accepted the Department's request to withdraw the appeals, considering them 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 due to low tax effect. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were 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 accepted the Department's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The cross-objections filed by the assessees were also dismissed.

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 noted that the amalgamation fact was not properly considered in the assessment order and the revisionary order was passed without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Pr. CIT.