ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the speedy disposal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances were identical to a previous case of a co-owner (Sh. Bharat Singh) where similar additions were deleted. Following the precedent, the additions were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions laid down in Section 271AAA of the Act. The statement itself clarified the income was from business, and this was further substantiated by subsequent submissions.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal found the contradictory statements of Shri Binod Kumar Jha to be the central issue. To ensure justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination and to allow the assessee to cross-examine Shri Jha.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses as pre-operative. The auditor's report indicated the wind farms were incomplete and expected to start operations later, and the wind turbines were shown as capital advances, not fixed assets.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on the Valuation Officer's report, which was not sufficient without other corroborating evidence. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that ESOP compensation is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's case. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that only investments yielding exempt income during the year should be considered for disallowance, citing a Delhi High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the consequential assessment order does not survive. Therefore, the impugned addition is to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeals. It followed the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case involving the same company, which had declared M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. as a bogus entity providing accommodation entries.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeals. It followed the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case involving the same company, which had declared M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. as a bogus entity providing accommodation entries.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with necessary evidence and cooperate in the speedy disposal of the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit details regarding the loan and its utilization before the CIT(A). This would allow the revenue to take a considered decision based on the submitted evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not commenced any business activity during the year, as evidenced by the absence of a license and any revenue generation. Therefore, the claimed expenses could not be treated as business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not leviable when the assessment order is passed under Section 143(3), as this implies that subsequent compliances were considered satisfactory. The Tribunal followed its own precedents on this matter.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-cooperation before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Considering the assessee's conduct, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that no lenient view could be taken.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not leviable when the assessment order is passed under Section 143(3), as this implies that subsequent compliances were considered satisfactory. The Tribunal followed its own precedents on this matter.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's admissions made before the Assessing Officer were valid and could not be retracted through an affidavit filed as additional evidence before the CIT(A). The additions were confirmed based on these admissions and the lack of explanation.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the enhanced monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed as non-maintainable because the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal held that tax was not deductible at source on Passenger Service Fees under Section 194J, but rather under Section 194C. Regarding credit card gateway fees, it was held that the assessee was not liable for TDS. Provisions made on accrual basis were also discussed.

The Tribunal noted that in a previous year (AY 2011-12), a similar issue was remanded for verification of compliance with a CBDT circular regarding tax deduction at source. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the current issue as well for verification of transactions and treatment of receipts/expenditures.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not leviable when the assessment order is passed under Section 143(3), as this implies that subsequent compliances were considered satisfactory. The Tribunal followed its own precedents on this matter.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach to recomputing interest on receivables without establishing a profit-shifting pattern was not based on sound legal principles. Regarding fixed assets, the Tribunal allowed a mark-up of 1% to 5% as the AE would not provide services for free, directing the deletion of the adjustment to the ALP.

The Tribunal held that offshore supplies for the Teesta and Purulia projects could not be taxed under Section 44BBB. It also ruled that the income from the projects should be taxed on a cash basis, not mercantile basis. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding the attribution of profits to the PE.

The Tribunal held that offshore supplies for the Teesta and Purulia projects could not be taxed under Section 44BBB. It also ruled that the income from the projects should be taxed on a cash basis, not mercantile basis. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding the attribution of profits to the PE.

The Tribunal held that offshore supplies for the Teesta and Purulia projects could not be taxed under Section 44BBB. It also ruled that the income from the projects should be taxed on a cash basis, not mercantile basis. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding the attribution of profits to the PE.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted relief in proceedings related to the impugned order. As the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue did not object, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in group concerns, which held that similar fees were not taxable as FTS. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that merely because an SLP is pending before the Supreme Court is no ground to not follow the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. The Tribunal confirmed that invocation of Section 153A to reopen concluded assessments without incriminating material found during search is not justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and had decided the issues ex parte. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on mere suspicion and change of opinion, without any tangible material. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the order was non-speaking. Therefore, the ITAT cancelled the impugned order and set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that offshore supplies for the Teesta and Purulia projects could not be taxed under Section 44BBB. It also ruled that the income from the projects should be taxed on a cash basis, not mercantile basis. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding the attribution of profits to the PE.

The Tribunal restored the issue of loss on rate settlement to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish evidence and for the AO to verify it, as Rule 46A was not followed. The addition on account of commission paid to foreign agents was dismissed as the services were rendered outside India and did not fall under Section 195.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and had decided the issues ex parte. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte and non-speaking order was not sustainable in law. The tribunal cancelled the impugned order and set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the AO, relying on a 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing. The AO failed to independently verify the information and establish a live link between the material and the belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his mind independently to the information received, nor recorded his reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee was not genuine and was part of a scheme to provide accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that while Section 68 was wrongly applied by the Assessing Officer, this did not invalidate the assessment.

The Tribunal held that tax was not deductible at source on Passenger Service Fees under Section 194J, but rather under Section 194C. Regarding credit card gateway fees, it was held that the assessee was not liable for TDS. Provisions made on accrual basis were also discussed.

The Tribunal held that tax was not deductible at source on Passenger Service Fees under Section 194J, but rather under Section 194C. Regarding credit card gateway fees, it was held that the assessee was not liable for TDS. Provisions made on accrual basis were also discussed.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable as it violated the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits and no new material was presented to warrant a different view. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits and no new material was presented to warrant a different view. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not provided with adequate opportunities to substantiate their claims. Therefore, grounds related to specific disallowances and income treatment were set aside for fresh adjudication.