ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the cash deposits with evidence. The ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AOP's revenue distribution, which reflected different profit-sharing ratios for two projects, was accepted in the AOP's assessment. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 86 on the distributed share of profit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the disallowances. The PF/ESIC contribution issue was decided based on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents, and the leave encashment disallowance was deleted as the assessee had not claimed it as an expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee had become infructuous as the addition made by the AO was already deleted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s direction to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 was also questioned regarding its maintainability and time limitations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to donations, finding that donation to another charitable institution is permissible application of income. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of sponsorship fees to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963, to do substantial justice. The matter was then referred back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo examination of the commission payments.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 17,58,156/- related to cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanations inconsistent and lacking evidence. However, it partly allowed the appeal on other grounds concerning depreciation and disallowance of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, noting that the AO acted in accordance with provisions applicable from AY 2008-09 onwards. The disallowance of bonus paid to directors was also confirmed, distinguishing the facts from previous favorable rulings.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 15,60,197/- as the assessee provided a date-wise explanation for repair expenses. However, the addition of Rs. 19,28,370/- for unaccounted cash transactions was upheld as the assessee failed to adequately explain the entries.

The Tribunal found that the AO made additions based on allegations and reports from other agencies without conducting meaningful investigations. The Tribunal noted that the DRP's findings were vague and lacked a clear basis for the disallowances, leading to the conclusion that the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case, considering recent Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, following previous decisions in similar cases involving the Suresh Nanda group. It was held that share capital brought in through FDI route cannot be taxed if proper documentation exists and there's no evidence of income arising in India.

The Tribunal held that share capital brought in through the FDI route cannot be taxed, especially when there is no evidence of it being invested out of income arising in India. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues in related cases were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the principle of natural justice was violated as the CIT(Exemption) did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The matter was set aside for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, following previous decisions in similar cases involving the Suresh Nanda group. It was held that share capital brought in through FDI route cannot be taxed if proper documentation exists and there's no evidence of income arising in India.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions and the High Court's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. It held that expenses related to bids, tenders, consultancy, and seismic data evaluation are normal business expenditures allowable under Section 37.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, following previous decisions in similar cases involving the Suresh Nanda group. It was held that share capital brought in through FDI route cannot be taxed if proper documentation exists and there's no evidence of income arising in India.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions and the High Court's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. It held that expenses related to bids, tenders, consultancy, and seismic data evaluation are normal business expenditures allowable under Section 37.

The Tribunal held that the revenue received under the BREW agreements was for the right to use copyrighted material, not the copyright itself, and therefore not taxable as royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-US tax treaty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of equipment and services to MUL. Consequently, the income from these supplies was not taxable in India, and interest under Section 234B was not leviable as the entire income was subject to TDS.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, following previous decisions in similar cases involving the Suresh Nanda group. It was held that share capital brought in through FDI route cannot be taxed if proper documentation exists and there's no evidence of income arising in India.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates not pressing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal in light of this circular.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted thorough inquiries during both original and reassessment proceedings and had taken a plausible view based on prevailing judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the AO's order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's approach was not in consonance with the 'interest saved' approach proposed by the assessee, which had been accepted in subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the TPO/AO for reconsideration.