ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2019

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 held that the assessee's activities resulted in the production of an article with a distinct commercial utility, aligning with previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without specific charges of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notices issued were vague, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without specific charges of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notices issued were vague, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily for advertisement, publicity, and sales promotion, with other services being incidental. Therefore, the payments were business income and not FTS or royalty, and thus not taxable in India as the assessee had no permanent establishment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's re-examination of the settled issue regarding the allowability of discounts and rebates for FBT was invalid. The earlier decision of the Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's ruling, clearly established that these expenses are not liable to FBT.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular applies to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable because the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's re-examination of the settled issue regarding the allowability of discounts and rebates for FBT was invalid. The earlier decision of the Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's ruling, clearly established that these expenses are not liable to FBT.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the approval granted by the higher authorities under Section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision for the preceding assessment year, restored the issue of interest on receivables to the Assessing Officer/TPO. The adjustment is to be computed for receivables delayed beyond 90 days, considering 90 days as a reasonable credit period in the assessee's trade.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's re-examination of the settled issue regarding the allowability of discounts and rebates for FBT was invalid. The earlier decision of the Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's ruling, clearly established that these expenses are not liable to FBT.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT's instructions for litigation management.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without specific charges of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notices issued were vague, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without specific charges of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notices issued were vague, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without specific charges of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notices issued were vague, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without specific charges of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the notices issued were vague, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to comply promptly with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to comply promptly with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the right to use software granted through licensing does not constitute royalty under the domestic law or the DTAA. Amendments to domestic law do not automatically amend a treaty unless incorporated into the treaty itself.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circulars mandate that departmental appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit (initially Rs. 20 lakhs, later enhanced to Rs. 50 lakhs) should not be filed or pressed. Since the tax effect here was below the enhanced limit and did not fall under any exceptions, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that there is a distinction between setting up a business and commencing commercial operations. The assessee's activities, including bidding, fund infusion, and hiring staff, indicated the business was set up, making the expenses allowable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the departmental appeal was less than Rs. 50 lacs. As no exceptions were brought to its notice, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue wished to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and not taxable, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents. Therefore, the assessee's claim was allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the 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 held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was not fulfilled by the assessee. In the absence of such satisfaction and a show cause notice, the penalty levy is not justified.

The tribunal restricted the Section 14A disallowance to the amount of exempt income and partly allowed the appeal regarding capital expenditure by directing capitalization of Rs. 10,68,750 and allowing depreciation. The disallowance of personal expenditure was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the interest on FDRs was correctly offered in subsequent years on a receipt basis due to auditor's doubts about bank guarantee invocation. Regarding the cessation of liability, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee held client funds in a fiduciary capacity, and showing the liability in the balance sheet extended its life, thus it was not taxable income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, but restricted it to the exempt income. It also upheld the treatment of license fees as revenue expenditure and the exclusion of telecommunication and foreign currency expenses from export turnover. The disallowance of unrealized foreign exchange loss was also upheld in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, but restricted it to the exempt income. It also upheld the treatment of license fees as revenue expenditure and the exclusion of telecommunication and foreign currency expenses from export turnover. The disallowance of unrealized foreign exchange loss was also upheld in favour of the assessee.

The tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction as to which limb of the section has not been fulfilled by the assessee and no show cause notice is issued.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the legal issues and merits raised by the assessee, including objections to the reopening and additional evidence. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was in the business of facilitating students for foreign studies, the entire gross receipts could not be added to income. It was decided that 50% of the estimated receipts should be considered as profit/income.

The Tribunal held that the interest on FDRs was correctly offered in subsequent years on a receipt basis due to auditor's doubts about bank guarantee invocation. Regarding the cessation of liability, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee held client funds in a fiduciary capacity, and showing the liability in the balance sheet extended its life, thus it was not taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenses were incurred for a business purpose, as the assessee intended to expand his office premises. Even if not allowed under Section 36(1)(iii), the expenditure was deductible under Section 57(iii) as it was incurred for earning interest income.

The Tribunal held that the write-off of Cenvat credit is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act in the year it is debited to the books of accounts. The assessee is at liberty to make such a claim in the year of its choice.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was to be decided in accordance with the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner for issuing the notice under section 148 was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were considered bad in law and quashed.

The Tribunal recalled its ex-parte order due to lack of proper service of notice. Subsequently, it held that since the additions made under Section 153C were deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on those additions had no basis and was therefore to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that software and EDP charges incurred by the assessee are revenue in nature, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case and High Court precedents. The assessee is entitled to claim these as allowable deductions.

The tribunal granted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as having been withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the statements of the buyer's son and property dealer, which were recorded behind the assessee's back and without allowing cross-examination, could not be solely relied upon to make an addition.