ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings, held that interest income earned on temporary parking of business funds and certain miscellaneous income items are eligible for deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal also ruled that foreign exchange gains/losses should be treated as operating items.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to improper service of notice under section 148 and the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the loss from one eligible unit should not be set off against the profit of another eligible unit for the purpose of Section 80IC deduction. The assessee should be allowed to claim deduction on the profit of the profitable unit.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the date of handing over seized material, the proceedings under Section 153C were bad in law. Furthermore, for other assessment years, the seized trial balance was not considered incriminating as it was accepted in a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that while the AO cannot entertain a claim not made via a revised return, appellate authorities can consider such claims. The loss from one eligible unit should not reduce the profit of another eligible unit for Section 80IC deduction.

The CIT(A) quashed the notice for reopening the assessment, holding that it was based on a change of opinion on the same set of facts already examined during the original assessment. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80ID is not available if the eligible business is formed by the transfer of a building previously used as a hotel. The facts indicated that the hotel building was constructed prior to April 2008 and was leased out as 'Hotel Rani Mahal' before being operated as 'Hotel SIRIS 18'.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as it was based on incorrect assumptions. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly regarding provisions for personnel costs, directing deletion of addition for Stock Appreciation Right (SAR) provisions but sustaining disallowance for excess provisions for leave travel allowance and medical reimbursement.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not call for confirmations from investors, who were also trustees/directors. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidence, considering the Settlement Commission's order in a related case.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for trademark fee, noting that it was a commercial arrangement and had been allowed in prior years. However, it dismissed the depreciation claim on the new office building as it was not proven to be put to use for business purposes during the relevant period.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction as the revised accounts reflected the true and fair view of the transactions, and the income was not artificially created. The revenue was not at a loss as income from the project in subsequent years was offered to tax.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had given an opportunity for hearing, the assessee was non-cooperative. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal felt that sufficient opportunity was not provided to substantiate the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as it was based on incorrect assumptions. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly regarding provisions for personnel costs, directing deletion of addition for Stock Appreciation Right (SAR) provisions but sustaining disallowance for excess provisions for leave travel allowance and medical reimbursement.

The Tribunal held that the payment was commission for procuring an order and not fee for technical services, as TEI's role was limited to introducing a buyer and facilitating the order. Since TEI had no Permanent Establishment in India, the commission income was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as it was based on incorrect assumptions. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly regarding provisions for personnel costs, directing deletion of addition for Stock Appreciation Right (SAR) provisions but sustaining disallowance for excess provisions for leave travel allowance and medical reimbursement.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as it was based on incorrect assumptions. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly regarding provisions for personnel costs, directing deletion of addition for Stock Appreciation Right (SAR) provisions but sustaining disallowance for excess provisions for leave travel allowance and medical reimbursement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transaction, especially when the investor entities could not be located. The AO's addition was therefore justified.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was resolved under the MAP with the UK. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the request.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the mandatory requirement of serving notice under Section 148 of the Act was not complied with as it was sent to the wrong address. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated were bad in law.

The Tribunal held that provision for impairment of assets should not be treated as operating expenditure for transfer pricing calculations. It also directed the inclusion of Candico India Ltd. as a comparable, overturning the lower authorities' rejection based on it being a loss-making company.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal noted that a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was filed and the revenue had no objection.