ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. As the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals and the Departmental Representative did not object, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that material collected behind the assessee's back cannot be used unless provided to the assessee with an opportunity to rebut. Reliance on statements without cross-examination is invalid, and additions based on such material are not permissible.

The Tribunal held that since the order passed under section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the subsequent assessment order, which was based on the CIT's direction, must also fall. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding.

The Tribunal found that in subsequent assessment proceedings, the same creditor's loan was accepted after his statement was recorded. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the excess claim of brought forward loss was a bona fide and inadvertent clerical mistake. Therefore, no penalty was leviable under Section 271(1)(c) for such an unintentional error.

The Tribunal held that material collected behind the assessee's back cannot be used unless provided to the assessee with an opportunity to rebut. Reliance on statements without cross-examination is invalid, and additions based on such material are not permissible.

The ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a due opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that appellate authorities have the power to consider claims not made in the original return. The decision in Goetze India Ltd. was clarified to be limited to the assessing authority's powers, not impacting appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that material collected behind the assessee's back cannot be used unless provided to the assessee with an opportunity to rebut. Reliance on statements without cross-examination is invalid, and additions based on such material are not permissible.

The Tribunal held that since the corresponding quantum addition has been deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. The penalty is therefore cancelled.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, the disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible, following the Supreme Court's decision in GVK Project and Technical Services Ltd.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, the disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible, following the Supreme Court's decision in GVK Project and Technical Services Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn due to low tax effect. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection and additional ground, holding that no addition could be made under Section 153A as the assessment for the year was already completed and no incriminating material was found.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily withdrew certain expense claims at the commencement of the assessment proceedings, before being confronted with specific queries or material by the Assessing Officer, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied on such suo motu disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the TPO cannot abruptly change the method from TNMM to CUP without reason and that the benefit test is impermissible for royalty and product development fees. The issue was remanded to the TPO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the issue of registration cancellation was pending further clarification from the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the taxability of the assessee's income should be decided after the fate of the registration is determined.

The Tribunal found that the issue of registration cancellation was pending further clarification from the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the taxability of the assessee's income should be decided after the fate of the registration is determined.

The Tribunal held that material collected behind the assessee's back cannot be used unless provided to the assessee with an opportunity to rebut. Reliance on statements without cross-examination is invalid, and additions based on such material are not permissible.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, the disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible, following the Supreme Court's decision in GVK Project and Technical Services Ltd.

The Tribunal held that material collected behind the assessee's back cannot be used unless provided to the assessee with an opportunity to rebut. Reliance on statements without cross-examination is invalid, and additions based on such material are not permissible.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information and obstructed the investigation process.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss on business advances is a revenue loss and not a capital loss. It further held that there was no direct nexus between the business advances invested in mutual funds and the exempt income, thus disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any dividend or exempt income. The AO's disallowance was made mechanically and without basis.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss on business advances is a revenue loss and not a capital loss. It further held that there was no direct nexus between the business advances invested in mutual funds and the exempt income, thus disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted.

The Tribunal allowed the write-off of advances as revenue expenditure, following a Delhi High Court decision. The issue of capitalizing interest expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the insurance claim received by Adidas AG was not taxable in the hands of the assessee in India. The AMP expense adjustment was also contested by the assessee, arguing it was a full-risk bearing entrepreneur.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed in terms of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The CIT(DR) did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any dividend or exempt income. The AO's disallowance was made mechanically and without basis.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance. It found no illegality or perversity in the order, especially since no fresh investments were made and the CIT(A) followed a previously upheld formula.

The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances of the current assessment year were similar to earlier years where identical issues were decided in favour of the assessee. Following the precedents of the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the additions.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any dividend or exempt income. The AO's disallowance was made mechanically and without basis.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for 100% deduction under Section 80IC, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Aarham Softronics. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have the enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the demand for fees levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was without authority of law.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- received from M/s. C.J. Exim Pvt. Ltd. as share application/premium, finding the transaction to be bogus. However, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- from Mass Securities Pvt. Ltd. was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have the enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the demand for fees levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have the enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the demand for fees levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB. This issue is covered by a Special Bench decision of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- received from M/s. C.J. Exim Pvt. Ltd. as share application/premium, finding the transaction to be bogus. However, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- from Mass Securities Pvt. Ltd. was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the DIT(E)'s order under Section 263 was already set aside by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, and the Revenue's appeal against that order was dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the fresh assessment order was null and void.