ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous decision involving the assessee's wife, where similar protective additions were deleted. Since the overseas companies were already assessed on a substantive basis, making protective additions in the hands of the shareholder was unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to cooperate and prosecute the appeals diligently. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeals pending and decided to dismiss them.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to cooperate in the disposal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeals pending and dismissed them for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the non-representation and absence of the assessee, despite proper notice, indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without any fresh or tangible material. The original assessment had already considered the relevant expenses and made a partial disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to decide appeals with reasons, even if the assessee does not appear. The dismissal without reasons and without a proper opportunity to be heard violates Section 250(6).

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was also found to be barred by limitation without a condonation application.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that the assessment should have been under Section 153C and not Section 143(3). Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' as neither the TPO proposed any variation nor was the assessee a foreign company. Therefore, the AO was not competent to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C, making the final assessment order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the unearned revenue of Rs. 220.80 crores should be examined for taxation in the succeeding year. If offered to tax, it should be deleted. If not, corresponding expenditure should be allowed as deduction in the current year. The addition on account of short-term capital gains was not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/- has statutory force and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the revised limit, it was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, especially given the lack of business activity. It upheld the disallowance of expenses and dismissed the appeal regarding carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not giving reasons for its decision. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the assessee had disclosed the loss in its accounts and the tax audit report, indicating a bona fide claim rather than furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on the Investigation Report without providing a copy to the assessee, and without affording an opportunity for cross-examination, violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was invalid as the assessee was not provided with a copy of the Investigation Report and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the source of information. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was invalid as the assessee was not provided with a copy of the Investigation Report and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the source of information. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was invalid as the assessee was not provided with a copy of the Investigation Report and was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the source of information. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that subsidies received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme were capital in nature and not taxable as revenue receipts. It also directed the AO to verify and re-compute interest under sections 234A/234B and allow credit for taxes paid by amalgamated entities.

The Tribunal held that subsidies received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme were capital in nature and not taxable as revenue receipts. It also directed the AO to verify and re-compute interest under sections 234A/234B and allow credit for taxes paid by amalgamated entities.

The Tribunal held that subsidies received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme were capital in nature and not taxable as revenue receipts. It also directed the AO to verify and re-compute interest under sections 234A/234B and allow credit for taxes paid by amalgamated entities.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Mere cash deposits in a bank account do not automatically constitute escaped income without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that royalty and sponsorship fees were incidental to the assessee's objects of promoting wrestling and not business income. It also held that expenditure incurred for players representing India abroad, with funds routed through the assessee from the Government, was not hit by Section 11(1)(c) as it was for promoting national interest.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, having statutory force, mandated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed. The Revenue did not claim any exclusion from this circular.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Mere cash deposits in a bank account do not automatically constitute escaped income without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Mere cash deposits in a bank account do not automatically constitute escaped income without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that subsidies received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme were capital in nature and not taxable as revenue receipts. It also directed the AO to verify and re-compute interest under sections 234A/234B and allow credit for taxes paid by amalgamated entities.

The Tribunal held that royalty and sponsorship fees were incidental to the assessee's objects of promoting wrestling and not business income. It also held that expenditure incurred for players representing India abroad, with funds routed through the assessee from the Government, was not hit by Section 11(1)(c) as it was for promoting national interest.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that it is the assessee's duty to provide a correct address and that failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. However, accepting the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal, it was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to file an application if conditions for contesting are met.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment on the purchase of fixed assets was tax neutral as the depreciation on these assets was compensated with a mark-up. Therefore, no addition could be made by considering the value at Nil. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that subsidies received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme were capital in nature and not taxable as revenue receipts. It also directed the AO to verify and re-compute interest under sections 234A/234B and allow credit for taxes paid by amalgamated entities.

The Tribunal held that subsidies received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme were capital in nature and not taxable as revenue receipts. It also directed the AO to verify and re-compute interest under sections 234A/234B and allow credit for taxes paid by amalgamated entities.

The Tribunal held that direct marketing and sales related expenses or discounts/concessions should not be part of AMP expenses, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Since the grant received by the assessee exceeded the arm's length price of AMP expenses after excluding these items, no TP adjustment was warranted.