ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that Excel Infoways Ltd., TCS E-serve Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd. were not suitable comparables for benchmarking the ITES transactions. This was due to dissimilar functions, brand value, risk profiles, and lack of segmental data for some comparables.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT circular that increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the set-off of rental payments after considering TDS implications and remanded the issue of prepaid taxes and interest under sections 234B and 234C to the Assessing Officer. The appeal for AY 2013-14 was allowed based on the reasoning for AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. This was primarily due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the set-off of rental payments after considering TDS implications and remanded the issue of prepaid taxes and interest under sections 234B and 234C to the Assessing Officer. The appeal for AY 2013-14 was allowed based on the reasoning for AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT Circular and its subsequent clarification. The appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the disputed amount was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

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

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

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

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 Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal, noting that the CIT(A) may have ignored the principle that disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is not permissible if sufficient interest-free funds are available. The CIT(A) also may not have provided adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure is allowable under Section 57(iii) against interest income, even if treated as income from other sources. It also emphasized the rule of consistency due to the revenue's treatment in preceding and subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the disputed amount was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the show cause notice issued by the AO was vague and did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. The notice failed to specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for shifting GDRs to a main stock exchange without increasing the capital base are revenue in nature and deductible. It also held that community development expenses incurred for business purposes are allowable deductions under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that Section 10(26B) contemplates promotion of interests of SC/ST/OBC or any two or all of them, and the target group of Safai Karamcharis and Manual Scavengers inherently belong to these categories. A letter from the state agency confirmed funds were exclusively for the SC community in Delhi.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed the order without appreciating the submitted documents. The issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit and did not fall under any exceptions, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily because the tax effect in the appeals was below the threshold limit set by CBDT circulars for filing appeals, and the Revenue did not press the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for shifting GDRs to a main stock exchange without increasing the capital base are revenue in nature and deductible. It also held that community development expenses incurred for business purposes are allowable deductions under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for shifting GDRs to a main stock exchange without increasing the capital base are revenue in nature and deductible. It also held that community development expenses incurred for business purposes are allowable deductions under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily because the tax effect in the appeals was below the threshold limit specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals, making them not maintainable. The Revenue also did not press the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute BPO service margins as per the MAP resolution and apply the same for AY 2006-07. For the loan interest, the Tribunal directed recomputation at LIBOR + 150 basis points. The issue of prior period expenses was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT had provided detailed reasons for revising the assessment order, indicating that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. No contrary material was presented by the assessee to persuade the Tribunal to differ from the Pr. CIT's view.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT had passed a speaking order with detailed reasons for revision. As no new material was presented by the assessee to persuade a different view, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the PCIT's order.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular and its subsequent clarification. The appeal was dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the CIT(A) had properly considered the additional evidence and that the AO's additions, particularly the transfer pricing adjustment, lacked proper basis and justification.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of indexation for property sale should be considered from the date of booking. For share sale, it directed that the gain should be taxed as capital gain, not business income, and allowed deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of indexation for property sale should be considered from the date of booking. For share sale, it directed that the gain should be taxed as capital gain, not business income, and allowed deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a reasonable opportunity to present their case was not granted. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that Vapi Waste & Effluent Management Co. Ltd. was not a valid comparable for routine marketing support services due to functional differences and revenue sources. Several grounds were not pressed or were considered academic.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the books of accounts without sufficient justification and without proper opportunity to the assessee. The issue of outstanding wages was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly adjudicated the issues, particularly regarding the reopening of assessment and the applicability of presumptive taxation sections. Following a similar decision for a preceding year, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish original certificates, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to examine them and decide the issue after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 153A were void ab initio as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, additions made on the basis of 'dumb documents' without independent corroboration were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.