ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income (like dividend) and has not incurred any expenditure for earning such income. The disallowance was based on presumption and not on actual facts.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's evidence regarding purchases and had applied Section 14A and Rule 8D mechanically without proper findings. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) within the stipulated time, even in reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal followed its own decision for the preceding assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's evidence regarding purchases and had applied Section 14A and Rule 8D mechanically without proper findings. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. should be included as a comparable. It also directed the TPO to verify the functional comparability of five other companies rejected solely on an export turnover filter.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to provide the requisite details and substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's evidence regarding purchases and had applied Section 14A and Rule 8D mechanically without proper findings. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that payments made under the ESOP scheme, representing reimbursement to the parent company for stock options granted to employees, are in the nature of employee compensation and deductible as business expenditure. The Tribunal also deleted transfer pricing adjustments on interest on receivables, following similar reasoning from prior years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation on the inflated portion of capital asset costs. However, due to incorrect computation of the quantum by lower authorities, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'Global Procurement Consultants Ltd.' and 'TSR Darashaw Ltd.' from the list of comparable companies used for benchmarking the international transactions. The Tribunal found that these companies had different business profiles and functionalities compared to the taxpayer.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and provide credit for taxes withheld on payments received by the head office. It also ruled in favor of the taxpayer regarding the applicability of the 10% tax rate under the India-Netherlands tax treaty for royalty/FTS income and disallowed interest under Section 234B.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, additional evidence was admitted in the interest of justice, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed by the Revenue and also not maintainable, citing CBDT circulars that enhanced the monetary threshold for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if the appeal was found to be outside the scope of the circulars.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were valid as the order mentioned the amalgamated company. However, since the foreign company had already been taxed and the Supreme Court confirmed it, the issue of modifying the demand was remanded back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income has been earned. Since the assessee did not earn any dividend income or incur expenditure on investments, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect in the present appeal was below this limit, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and accepted a plausible view regarding the nature of the financial assistance. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was deemed unwarranted as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and applies to pending appeals, rendered the Revenue's appeals non-maintainable as the tax effect was below this limit.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and applies to pending appeals, rendered the Revenue's appeals non-maintainable as the tax effect was below this limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, additional evidence was admitted in the interest of justice, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs and applies to pending appeals, rendered the Revenue's appeals non-maintainable as the tax effect was below this limit.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiries and accepted the assessee's contention that the financial assistance was a capital receipt. The PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the assessee's legal ground challenging additions made without incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on this specific legal ground.

The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically invoked Rule 8D without recording any dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim that the dividend income was earned on investments made in preceding years using non-interest-bearing funds. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as it was not pressed by the Revenue and was also not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall if the appeal was found to be outside the scope of the circulars.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing a final opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal excluded certain companies from the list of comparables for transfer pricing purposes due to functional dissimilarity. For the corporate tax grounds, the issue of disallowance of deposits written off as business loss was remitted back to the AO for further examination.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was in accordance with law and the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the detailed and speaking order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that no materials were brought before it by either side to warrant a view different from that taken by the Ld. CIT(A) on the merits of the additions. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

For AY 2010-11, the tribunal dismissed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, finding them against the assessee based on prior decisions. For AY 2011-12, the transfer pricing issue was remitted back to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for adjudication. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2011-12 was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction under Section 153A even if no incriminating material was found, as the return was filed after the search. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the merits of the additions.

For AY 2010-11, the tribunal dismissed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, finding them against the assessee based on prior decisions. For AY 2011-12, the transfer pricing issue was remitted back to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for adjudication. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2011-12 was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal found that the evidence for the 80C deduction was not thoroughly investigated at the lower levels. Both parties agreed that the matter should be sent back to the AO for fresh verification.

For AY 2010-11, the tribunal dismissed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, finding them against the assessee based on prior decisions. For AY 2011-12, the transfer pricing issue was remitted back to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for adjudication. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2011-12 was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the facts of this case were identical to previous cases where similar additions were deleted. Considering the family's status and customary practices, the jewellery was not considered unexplained or excessive.

The Tribunal held that since the revenue had previously accepted the deposits as arising from undisclosed sales, they could not be treated as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal directed that only a net profit ratio of 15% on the cash deposited should be added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a defaulting buyer who did not adhere to the payment plan and therefore had no right in the property. The refund received was merely the return of the sum paid, not a consideration for the transfer of a capital asset.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a defaulting buyer who did not adhere to the payment plan and therefore had no right in the property. The refund received was merely the return of the sum paid, not a consideration for the transfer of a capital asset.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed on a non-existing entity are a nullity in law, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed on a non-existing entity are a nullity in law, following the judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed on a non-existing entity are a nullity in law, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years on identical issues, restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary details.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years on identical issues, restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary details.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed on a non-existing entity are a nullity in law, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed on a non-existing entity are a nullity in law, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessments were quashed.