ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that if an amount is already included in the profit and loss account and offered to tax, it cannot be added again. The Tribunal also found that various expenses were incurred for the assessee's business and were duly accounted for, thus deleting the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as the seized documents did not pertain to the assessment years in question. This was based on the principle that for Section 153C jurisdiction, seized documents must belong to the assessee and relate to the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the cash balance maintained by the assessee was a business asset, and the interest paid on borrowed funds for this cash was a business expenditure. The Revenue failed to prove that the cash was used for non-business purposes or to generate secret profits.

The Tribunal held that TDS was deductible on lease rent payments to YEIDA, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of the proviso to Section 201(1) if the assessee provided necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the assessments could not be sustained as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized during the search. The additions made were on an estimate and lacked corroboration, thus quashing the impugned assessments.

The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables from AEs do not constitute a separate international transaction requiring benchmarking, as it's embedded in the main service transaction. It also found that the assessee's policy of not charging interest on receivables from non-AEs was relevant. Regarding statutory liabilities, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessments could not be sustained as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized during the search. The additions made were on an estimate and lacked corroboration, thus quashing the impugned assessments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as the seized documents did not pertain to the assessment years in question. This was based on the principle that for Section 153C jurisdiction, seized documents must belong to the assessee and relate to the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. As the tax effect in this case was below the limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's refusal to furnish the consent letter, despite being asked to cooperate in obtaining information about a potentially undisclosed foreign bank account, constituted non-compliance. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 mandates not filing or withdrawing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20,00,000/-. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity. The STPI certificate clearly indicated the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 10B, and the assessee had demonstrated adequate infrastructure and activities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee, by providing reasons for the decision as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The dismissal for non-prosecution without considering merits was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the software supply did not constitute royalty. It further confirmed that income related to services and facilities for mineral oil exploration falls under the presumptive taxation provisions of Section 44BB.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute income under Section 44 for the life insurance business, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted due to a defective notice.

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 should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the net profit margin for applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) should be calculated with reference to the costs incurred by the assessee, not by third-party vendors or associated enterprises. The TPO's approach of including third-party costs was not supported by the rules.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute income under Section 44 for the life insurance business, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted due to a defective notice.

The Tribunal held that the assessments could not be sustained as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized during the search. The additions made were on an estimate and lacked corroboration, thus quashing the impugned assessments.

The Tribunal held that the assessments could not be sustained as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized during the search. The additions made were on an estimate and lacked corroboration, thus quashing the impugned assessments.

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

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision for AY 2010-11, which had restored the issue to the Assessing Officer due to contradictions and lack of basis for sales estimation. The current appeal was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for interest on the housing loan, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. For the unexplained cash deposits, the issue was remanded back to the AO for further verification. The penalty levied was quashed due to procedural defects in the notice and order.

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

The ITAT initially held the reopening of assessment as bad in law, but the High Court reversed this, directing the ITAT to decide the appeal on merits. The High Court found the reassessment was validly based on fresh material and the original assessment was not under Section 143(3).

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal set aside the issue back to the AO to consider the assessee's claim afresh upon submission of appropriate bank statements.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds which were purely legal and went to the root of the matter. The judgment discusses the assessee's contention that the AO unfairly viewed share transactions prejudicially and that earning substantial gains doesn't negate the transaction's authenticity.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds which were purely legal and went to the root of the matter. The judgment discusses the assessee's contention that the AO unfairly viewed share transactions prejudicially and that earning substantial gains doesn't negate the transaction's authenticity.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds which were purely legal and went to the root of the matter. The judgment discusses the assessee's contention that the AO unfairly viewed share transactions prejudicially and that earning substantial gains doesn't negate the transaction's authenticity.

The Tribunal held that a mere audit objection or the possibility of a different view does not automatically render an AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT must be satisfied that the basis for exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 exists, which was not demonstrated in this case.

The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO, who, after examining the additional evidence, found the cash deposits and investment source to be fully explained. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxation of software payments as royalty was squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in DIT vs. Infrasoft Ltd. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, following the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as the reasons recorded did not allege failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The purchases were made from a supplier, and the assessee's inability to produce records was the basis for addition, not a failure to disclose.

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 should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be penalized under Section 271(1)(c) as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The additions were based on estimations or the assessee's inability to fully substantiate the source of gifts, not on a finding of deliberate misrepresentation.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds which were purely legal and went to the root of the matter. The judgment discusses the assessee's contention that the AO unfairly viewed share transactions prejudicially and that earning substantial gains doesn't negate the transaction's authenticity.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds which were purely legal and went to the root of the matter. The judgment discusses the assessee's contention that the AO unfairly viewed share transactions prejudicially and that earning substantial gains doesn't negate the transaction's authenticity.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds which were purely legal and went to the root of the matter. The judgment discusses the assessee's contention that the AO unfairly viewed share transactions prejudicially and that earning substantial gains doesn't negate the transaction's authenticity.

The Tribunal held that the assessments could not be sustained as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized during the search. The additions made were on an estimate and lacked corroboration, thus quashing the impugned assessments.

The Tribunal held that the assessments could not be sustained as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized during the search. The additions made were on an estimate and lacked corroboration, thus quashing the impugned assessments.

The Tribunal held that since no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of the search, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the assessment order was considered bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute income under Section 44 for the life insurance business, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted due to a defective notice.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for interest on the housing loan, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. For the unexplained cash deposits, the issue was remanded back to the AO for further verification. The penalty levied was quashed due to procedural defects in the notice and order.

The Tribunal held that the assessments could not be sustained as there was no incriminating material belonging to the assessee seized during the search. The additions made were on an estimate and lacked corroboration, thus quashing the impugned assessments.

The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables from AEs do not constitute a separate international transaction requiring benchmarking, as it's embedded in the main service transaction. It also found that the assessee's policy of not charging interest on receivables from non-AEs was relevant. Regarding statutory liabilities, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the penalty afresh after deciding the quantum appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.