ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that Infosys BPO and TCS E-Serve Ltd. are not good comparables due to their huge brand value, high turnover, and diversified activities compared to the assessee's ITES segment. The DRP's direction to exclude them was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's request not to proceed, following the dismissal of the Revenue's related appeals.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No.17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs.50 Lacs and this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's request not to proceed, following the dismissal of the Revenue's related appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was justified, following a consistent view in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The royalty payment was considered at arm's length.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. Since the assessees were not gaining by the delay and their bonafides were not in doubt, the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's request not to proceed, following the dismissal of the Revenue's related appeals.

The assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies to all pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. The assessee also withdrew its cross-objection, which was consequently dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions for overseas companies were not justified as substantive additions were made in the hands of those companies. The additions for cash and jewellery were also deleted as the amounts were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that non-compete fee does not qualify as an intangible asset for depreciation as it does not confer exclusive rights against the world. The Section 14A disallowance was also upheld as there was no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions for overseas companies were not justified as substantive additions were made in the hands of those companies. The additions for cash and jewellery were also deleted as the amounts were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. Since the assessees were not gaining by the delay and their bonafides were not in doubt, the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record any satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and also failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, penalty for concealment is not leviable solely on the basis of an estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C after the remand, as required by Section 92CA, rendered the assessment order invalid and without jurisdiction. This procedural lapse was considered incurable.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions for overseas companies were not justified as substantive additions were made in the hands of those companies. The additions for cash and jewellery were also deleted as the amounts were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as the assessment was completed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment with proper opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude 'Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd.' as a comparable due to functional dissimilarity and failing the related party transaction filter. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions for overseas companies were not justified as substantive additions were made in the hands of those companies. The additions for cash and jewellery were also deleted as the amounts were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions for overseas companies were not justified as substantive additions were made in the hands of those companies. The additions for cash and jewellery were also deleted as the amounts were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions for overseas companies were not justified as substantive additions were made in the hands of those companies. The additions for cash and jewellery were also deleted as the amounts were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as processed under Section 200A, was not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The assessee had furnished the statement after depositing tax without delay, thus not violating Section 200(3).

The Tribunal held that the protective additions for overseas companies were not justified as substantive additions were made in the hands of those companies. The additions for cash and jewellery were also deleted as the amounts were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as processed under Section 200A, was not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The assessee had furnished the statement after depositing tax without delay, thus not violating Section 200(3).

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present documents and books of accounts after the partner dispute was settled.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as processed under Section 200A, was not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The assessee had furnished the statement after depositing tax without delay, thus not violating Section 200(3).

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it supported the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that while non-compliance was established, the penalty was justified only for one assessment year (2007-08) due to the manner in which notices were issued for other years. The penalty for the remaining years was not upheld.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, applying CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and a subsequent clarification which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and made it applicable to pending appeals.

The ITAT, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which applies to pending appeals, dismissed the revenue's appeal. The circular mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below a specified monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50 lacs should not be filed. As the tax effect in this case was below the limit and no exceptions were brought to notice, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that while non-compliance was established, the penalty was justified only for one assessment year (2007-08) due to the manner in which notices were issued for other years. The penalty for the remaining years was not upheld.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable.

The Tribunal, in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed. The circular was applicable to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, applying CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and a subsequent clarification which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and made it applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs before the ITAT, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.