ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law because the AO failed to specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being initiated under. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., the Tribunal found the penalty to be not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit and the Revenue did not controvert this, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are not maintainable.

The Tribunal confirmed the reopening of the assessment, following a similar order for the assessee's sister. However, the issue on merits was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding the assessee's claims of high agricultural income unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the assessee's submissions, including a revised return and fabricated lease agreements.

The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice were not followed as the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for a fresh decision on merit.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit and the Revenue did not controvert this, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit and the Revenue did not controvert this, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that similar issues for prior assessment years were remanded back to the TPO for fresh consideration of intercompany agreements and additional evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT order for the same assessee in a preceding assessment year, where the departmental appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the departmental appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that a markup on LIBOR was justifiable but that the 500 basis points markup was excessive. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternative plea for a markup of 170 basis points.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals for both assessment years had been decided by the Tribunal, with one issue being remanded and another allowed in favor of the assessee, the basis for the penalty no longer sustained.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals related to the additions forming the basis of the penalty had been decided by the Tribunal, with one issue being remanded and another allowed in favor of the assessee, the penalty proceedings did not survive.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a voluntary surrender of the amount during the survey and did not retract his statement. Therefore, the addition to his income was justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It relied on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, and the fact that the tax effect in this case was below that limit.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground of appeal, relating to exemption under Section 11, was legal in nature and should be admitted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for re-adjudication of the additional ground.

The Tribunal held that there was no justification for denying the exemption under Section 11(1) for AY 2012-13, especially after previous orders from the ITAT and Delhi High Court had allowed such exemption for the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) upholding the exemption was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit and the Revenue did not controvert this, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Department should not file appeals before it if the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit as per CBDT circulars. The Revenue's appeal was not pressed in light of these circulars.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circulars which stipulated a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment was already completed, no additions could be made under Section 153A. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored both issues raised by the Revenue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done based on the consent of both parties, following a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions regarding monetary limits. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal was a technical default and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after the assessee files the appeal electronically.

The Tribunal held that if substantial expansion is carried out within ten years, an assessee can continue claiming 100% deduction under Section 80IC beyond the initial five years. This is based on a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that Nokia Corporation did not have a fixed place PE in India as the 'right to use' or 'disposal' test was not satisfied. The Tribunal also found no material to support the existence of a Service PE. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee on the existence of PE and taxability of software and R&D activities were allowed.

The Tribunal held that Nokia Corporation did not have a fixed place PE in India as the 'right to use' or 'disposal' test was not satisfied. The Tribunal also found no material to support the existence of a Service PE. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee on the existence of PE and taxability of software and R&D activities were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving that the interest income did not belong to him. Mere filing of an affidavit without documentary evidence or efforts to rectify Form 26AS was insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits in the bank account before the authorities below. Since no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the claim of business income from a general store, the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal found a contradiction in the assessee's submissions to the DRP and the ITAT regarding the admission of a Permanent Establishment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded them back to the DRP to ascertain the admission of PE and decide accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circulars stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. The Departmental Representative did not press the appeal in light of these circulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly rectified the order by adjudicating a ground that was missed due to oversight. However, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to not entertain the rectification application for the second issue, as it pertained to adjudication of grounds rather than a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench's decision, which was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case. The High Court had held that such services do not constitute FTS.

The Tribunal, following its prior order for the same assessee in a different assessment year, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the additions made. The appeal was decided based on the precedent.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be fabricated and noted that the Tribunal fees were deposited only after a significant delay.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the Cost Plus Method (CPM) is the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in this case. This decision was based on the principle of consistency, as CPM was accepted for earlier and subsequent assessment years and by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal for a prior year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the investor and the genuineness of the transaction. The statement of the investor's director and the bank account details supported the finding that accommodation entries were provided.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and bad in law. It was undisputed that the reasons for reopening were recorded by the ITO, Ward 2(3), Noida, who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Although the case was transferred to the ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad, who had jurisdiction and completed the assessment, this officer did not record any reasons for reopening. The Tribunal found that Section 129 of the Act was not applicable as this was a matter of assuming valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings, not succession of jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on the ITAT Agra Bench decision in S.N. Bhargawa vs. ITO and the Gujarat High Court decision in Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that the Assessing Officer who records the reasons for reassessment must be the same officer who issues the notice under Section 148, and a successor AO cannot issue such a notice based on reasons recorded by a predecessor. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was held to be illegal. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and quashed the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148, resulting in the deletion of the entire addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits with reasons, even in the absence of the assessee, instead of dismissing it for non-prosecution. The impugned order was set aside.