ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2019

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 the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals, applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised limit.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow adjustment of business loss against assessed income after verification. It also directed the AO to grant credit for TDS. The addition under Section 14A was deleted due to lack of proper satisfaction by the AO. The disallowance of engineering fee capitalization was also directed to be deleted, following previous year's precedents.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough inquiries and investigations. The complaints leading to the revision proceedings were found to be false, frivolous, and baseless.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough inquiries and investigations. The complaints leading to the revision proceedings were found to be false, frivolous, and baseless.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had NIL income and no business activities, making it improbable to have genuine transactions of this nature.

The Tribunal held that Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the comparables, following previous decisions of the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were bad in law because they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were bad in law because they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were bad in law because they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were bad in law because they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were bad in law because they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Following precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough inquiries and investigations. The complaints leading to the revision proceedings were found to be false, frivolous, and baseless.

The Tribunal found that the DRP's direction to include other operating expenses in the budgeted contract costs corrected an infirmity in the AO's method. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal excluded 'Apitco Ltd' as a comparable due to its diverse activities not matching the assessee's services.

The Tribunal found a contradiction in the lower authorities' findings and directed the AO to re-examine the issue afresh. The AO is to verify the genuineness of the assessee's claim and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices were bad in law because they failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the amount was capitalized in WIP and not debited to the Profit & Loss Account, therefore, it could not be added back to the taxable income. The AO's attempt to rectify the original assessment order by adding this amount was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the entire penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals, applies to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised limit.

The Tribunal found that the DRP's direction to include other operating expenses in the budgeted contract costs corrected an infirmity in the AO's method. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal excluded 'Apitco Ltd' as a comparable due to its diverse activities not matching the assessee's services.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 154 regarding the closing stock discrepancy was beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, especially after the conclusion of Section 147 proceedings. The Tribunal found that Explanation 3 to Section 147, which allows for assessment of income that escaped assessment even if not in the original reasons, is not applicable to proceedings under Section 154 after the completion of Section 147 proceedings.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to record.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals is binding on the Department and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to conduct independent inquiry and merely suggested how the AO should have acted. The AO had conducted reasonable verification of documents and explanations provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals is binding on the Department and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals is binding on the Department and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the specified limit.

The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be sustained at the second appellate stage if a substantive addition has already been made in the hands of the donor. The Assessing Officer was directed to ascertain the finality of the addition in the donor's case before confirming any addition against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable due to the moratorium, and appeals by the assessee lacked authority from the IRP. The Tribunal is not empowered to pass orders during the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the assessee's books of account were not rejected, and the difference between the assessee's cost and the DVO's valuation was insignificant (less than 3%). The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding calculation errors in the operating margins of comparable companies. The Tribunal restored the entire issue to the AO for fresh determination after verifying the assessee's corrected calculations.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs before the Tribunal, is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the enhanced limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had failed to consider certain entries related to work contract purchases and had not disputed the assessee's trading account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity as the revenue could not controvert the factual findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are a self-contained code with specific timelines. Therefore, the general limitation period under Section 153 of the Act does not apply.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision was not justified as the AO's order was based on a sustainable view of law, especially considering the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. The Tribunal found no error in the AO's assessment and set aside the Pr. CIT's order.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of Rs. 3,48,000 related to interest expenditure disallowance under Section 14A, finding no justification for the disallowance. However, the disallowance of Rs. 3,38,000 under Section 14A was confirmed due to lack of explanation from the assessee. The entire addition of Rs. 2,56,80,000 for provision for standard assets was deleted, following a previous ITAT decision.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the assessee's books of account were not rejected, and the difference between the assessee's cost and the DVO's valuation was insignificant (less than 3%). The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the assessee's books of account were not rejected, and the difference between the assessee's cost and the DVO's valuation was insignificant (less than 3%). The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are a self-contained code with specific timelines. Therefore, the general limitation period under Section 153 of the Act does not apply.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning CSR expenses, finding that the disallowance was not sustainable as the relevant explanation to Section 37(1) was not applicable retrospectively. The issue regarding differences in Form 26AS was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no new material to justify the reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Aarham Softronics regarding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of notional interest on share application money and advances to subsidiaries, citing previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The issue of house property income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of depreciation claims. The transfer pricing adjustment for guarantee fee was partly allowed, with the rate fixed at 1%. The disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/Pension/ESI was allowed in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal has corrected a typographical error in the cause title and a clerical error in paragraph 6 of its earlier order. These corrections do not alter the original decision of the bench.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that payments made as reimbursement of expenses to non-residents were not taxable in India as they did not constitute income. It also found that certain consultancy and security services did not meet the 'make available' condition under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).