ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs are not maintainable. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application without considering crucial documents. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication after examining the evidence and providing a hearing.

The Tribunal held that while the cash payment violated Section 40A(3), the disallowance should be limited to 20% of the expenditure as per the law applicable for the assessment year. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the full disallowance.

The Tribunal held that simply because a property was not let out due to certain reasons does not automatically lead to the inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's estimation of ALV without ascertaining the property's condition and without credible material does not justify the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not press the appeal in view of the CBDT circulars. The appeal was deemed not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates a minimum tax effect of Rs. 50 lacs for departmental appeals to ITAT. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings, failing which the AO could proceed ex parte.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.

The Tribunal agreed that Section 68 was not applicable for the donations. However, it found that Section 115BBC might not be attracted if the donor's identity is provided. The issue of donations was restored to the AO for verification of cheques and bank accounts, and the depreciation disallowance was also directed to be re-examined by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was not the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking the international transactions, especially when both purchase and resale were with AEs. The case was remanded to the AO/TPO to re-evaluate using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as MAM.

The Tribunal found that while bank statements showed loan transactions, there was no documentary evidence regarding the creditworthiness of M/s V.M. Trading Company for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80IC based on jurisdictional High Court rulings, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure booked as discount was indeed discount and no TDS was required to be deducted under Section 194H. This decision followed previous orders of the Tribunal and High Court in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Revenue did not press it due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit set by CBDT circulars. The appeal was also considered not maintainable based on these circulars.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure booked as discount was indeed discount and no TDS was required to be deducted under Section 194H. This decision followed previous orders of the Tribunal and High Court in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and is not taxable, following previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, following its own precedents in identical cases for prior assessment years, restored the issue of royalty payment and its ALP determination to the AO/TPO. The AO/TPO were directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the agreement and allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to a clear non-application of mind by the AO, as a significant portion of the deposit pertained to a prior financial year. Furthermore, the assessee had provided evidence of receiving funds from her NRI brother, which constituted a valid source.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a portion of the interest deduction, stating the disallowance should be on the closing balance of advances. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s reduction of the disallowance on expenses from 10% to 5% as personal.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of market support services to the file of the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication. This decision applies to the assessment years under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not properly examined whether the education imparted by the assessee was in the nature of formal schooling, as defined by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80IC based on jurisdictional High Court rulings, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of loan amounts to cessation of a liability other than a trading liability, and therefore, Section 41(1) of the IT Act is not applicable. Section 28(iv) was also found not applicable as the receipts were in cash.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices and assessment orders lacked specificity regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such vague notices violate principles of natural justice and render the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E while processing a TDS statement under Section 200A. Therefore, the levy was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal due to low tax effect. The issue of depreciation was decided in favour of the assessee, while the ground regarding professional charges was not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices and assessment orders lacked specificity regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such vague notices violate principles of natural justice and render the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier orders, acknowledging a mistake in dismissing the appeals based on the Rs. 20 lacs threshold. Subsequently, considering the revised CBDT circular of Rs. 50 lacs, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices and assessment orders lacked specificity regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such vague notices violate principles of natural justice and render the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that once the long-term capital gain from the sale of a capital asset is declared and accepted, the sale proceeds cannot be added again as an unexplained credit under Section 68. The assessee had established ownership through an agreement to sell, possession, and disclosure in balance sheets.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier orders, acknowledging a mistake in dismissing the appeals based on the Rs. 20 lacs threshold. Subsequently, considering the revised CBDT circular of Rs. 50 lacs, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objections were withdrawn and dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices and assessment orders lacked specificity regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that such vague notices violate principles of natural justice and render the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the facts and evidence presented. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the cash deposits based on the evidence and the brother's books of account.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable and not pressed, citing the CBDT circulars regarding the monetary limit for appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous and not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal due to low tax effect. The issue of depreciation was decided in favour of the assessee, while the ground regarding professional charges was not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable and not pressed, citing the CBDT circulars regarding the monetary limit for appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous and not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal due to low tax effect. The issue of depreciation was decided in favour of the assessee, while the ground regarding professional charges was not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier orders, acknowledging a mistake in dismissing the appeals based on the Rs. 20 lacs threshold. Subsequently, considering the revised CBDT circular of Rs. 50 lacs, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with relevant documentary evidence before the revenue authorities. The assessee did not provide details of unsecured loans, which were necessary to support the claim.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings, failing which the AO could proceed ex parte.

The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal regarding sundry creditors, restoring a portion of the addition to the AO for verification. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning unsecured loans and disallowance of bank commission and interest, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented from producing evidence due to non-service of notices and the conduct of the authorized representative. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to admit additional evidence and decide on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits even in the absence of the appellant. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was based have been deleted, the penalty itself is not sustainable. The deletion of the quantum addition implies that no tax was sought to be evaded on that ground.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier orders, acknowledging a mistake in dismissing the appeals based on the Rs. 20 lacs threshold. Subsequently, considering the revised CBDT circular of Rs. 50 lacs, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that NOIDA authority is covered by the relevant CBDT notification, making it eligible for exemption from TDS under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f). Consequently, the assessee cannot be considered in default for not deducting tax at source on interest payments to NOIDA.