ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2020

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to R&D expenditure, Section 14A, outstanding provisions, and bad debts was correct. It also held that training expenses are revenue in nature and not capital, and disallowance by the AO was not legally tenable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to R&D expenditure, Section 14A, outstanding provisions, and bad debts was correct. It also held that training expenses are revenue in nature and not capital, and disallowance by the AO was not legally tenable.

The Tribunal held that the filing of an SLP by the Department is not a reason to disregard a jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also found that the CIT(A)'s exclusion of certain comparables based on RPT filters and functional dissimilarity was not to be interfered with, but modified the RPT filter threshold. Several companies were excluded as comparables due to functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental data, or product development focus.

The Tribunal held that the filing of an SLP by the Department is not a reason to disregard a jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also found that the CIT(A)'s exclusion of certain comparables based on RPT filters and functional dissimilarity was not to be interfered with, but modified the RPT filter threshold. Several companies were excluded as comparables due to functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental data, or product development focus.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act, following previous decisions in its own case. It also ruled that foreign grants received pending approval, and interest earned thereon, are not taxable as income.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of profit was not justified given the minor difference after reconciliation. It also ruled that income from repair of moulds and miscellaneous income should be treated as business income, not 'income from other sources'. The issue of foreign exchange fluctuation was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of profit was not justified due to a minor discrepancy after reconciliation. It also ruled that income from repair of moulds and miscellaneous income should be treated as business income, not 'income from other sources'. The issue of foreign exchange fluctuation was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act, following previous decisions in its own case. It also ruled that foreign grants received pending approval, and interest earned thereon, are not taxable as income.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were mistaken in their assessment. The assessee had utilized the capital gains for the construction of the new house and did not own more than one taxable residential house at the relevant time, making the deduction admissible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to R&D expenditure, Section 14A, outstanding provisions, and bad debts was correct. It also held that training expenses are revenue in nature and not capital, and disallowance by the AO was not legally tenable.

The Tribunal found that the AO had accepted a portion of the deposit as contract receipts but doubted the rest without proper justification. Since the assessee had declared income at a rate higher than prescribed under Section 44AD on the total receipts, the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs was deleted.

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee's name appeared as a code word in seized documents, additions could not be made without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's statement that business was conducted through a family concern with proper accounting and TDS.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that MGR for exhibition rights is not 'royalty' under Section 194J, and the deemed dividend was a commercial transaction. Additions for unexplained investments and cash deposits were directed to be deleted, while the sale of jewellery addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of non-compete fees as capital expenditure, denying depreciation. However, it allowed the expenditure on ice boxes as revenue expenditure, following a consistency approach and previous year's treatment.

The Tribunal held that MGR for exhibition rights is not 'royalty' under Section 194J, and the deemed dividend was a commercial transaction. Additions for unexplained investments and cash deposits were directed to be deleted, while the sale of jewellery addition was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the unsecured loan addition, finding the assessee could not prove its genuineness. However, it partly allowed the appeal on profit estimation by reducing the estimated net profit rate from 50% to 20%.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the primary reason for reopening the assessment under Section 147/148 does not result in any addition, then no other additions can be sustained. Therefore, the reassessment order was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the O&M phase, being a post-construction activity distinct from the construction itself, should not be clubbed with the construction activity for revenue recognition under AS-7. It also ruled that VAT and Service Tax included in the work order do not form part of the assessee's income and should be excluded.

The Tribunal held that the AO correctly applied the TNMM and that the allocation of expenses by the TPO was in line with the directions of the ITAT. The Tribunal also found no violation of natural justice as the data collected by the TPO was provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee's name appeared as a code word in seized documents, additions could not be made without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's statement that business was conducted through a family concern with proper accounting and TDS.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is part of the enhanced compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Interest under Section 34, however, is for delay in payment and is taxable.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing additions cannot be made for the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, as it is a complete code in itself. Consequently, the grounds challenging these additions were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had misapplied Section 72A instead of focusing on the conditions under Section 32A(6) as directed. Since the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 32A(6), the claim for unabsorbed investment allowance was merited.

The Tribunal held that since the advance received was already disclosed in the original return of income and the assessment was completed, the recovery of the Agreement to Sell could not be considered incriminating material. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.