ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to unsecured loans by incorrectly applying judgments related to trading account items. It also found that the revenue failed to prove the nature of transactions in an impounded document, thus no addition could be made based on it.

The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be interfered with under section 153C without any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their initial onus by providing evidence of the lender's identity and the transaction's genuineness. The addition made by the AO was deleted, considering the evidence presented.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAA was vague and invalid because it used the language of Section 271(1)(c) instead of specifying the 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAA. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided comparable cases for GP rates and that payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal considered the assessee's past GP rates and directed the AO to recompute the addition by adopting a GP rate of 4.5% on the turnover.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the TPO. It followed the consistent view of the co-ordinate bench and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had previously ruled in favour of the assessee on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that six comparable companies identified by the TPO for transfer pricing analysis should be excluded, following its own prior decisions. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 10% on leasehold improvements, treating them as part of the building.

The Tribunal held that six comparable companies identified by the TPO for transfer pricing analysis should be excluded, following its own prior decisions. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 10% on leasehold improvements, treating them as part of the building.

The tribunal held that the order passed without proper service of notice to the assessee is bad in law. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh disposal after issuing notice to the correct address.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAA was vague and invalid because it used the language of Section 271(1)(c) instead of specifying the 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAA. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentation to explain the source of cash deposits during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) also noted the lack of appearance and documentation from the assessee. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to decide the claim on merits based on material produced, even if a revised return was not filed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on the genuineness of the business losses.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest income addition, relying on previous consistent decisions and High Court/Supreme Court confirmations. For the retirement benefits issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the employment status of the employees.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their initial onus by providing evidence of the lender's identity and the transaction's genuineness. The addition made by the AO was deleted, considering the evidence presented.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal, while not ideal, was due to a bona fide mistaken impression and should have been condoned. The disallowance of TDS credit without reasons in the Section 143(1) intimation was legally irregular.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of notices due to illness and an inactive email address. It held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and a proper opportunity should be given to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that ERP and software expenses, which facilitate day-to-day operations and do not result in enduring benefit, should be treated as revenue expenditure. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was made on an ad-hoc basis without establishing a nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that ERP and software expenses, which facilitate day-to-day operations and do not result in enduring benefit, should be treated as revenue expenditure. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was made on an ad-hoc basis without establishing a nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that ERP and software expenses, which facilitate day-to-day operations and do not result in enduring benefit, should be treated as revenue expenditure. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was made on an ad-hoc basis without establishing a nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that ERP and software expenses, which facilitate day-to-day operations and do not result in enduring benefit, should be treated as revenue expenditure. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was made on an ad-hoc basis without establishing a nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that ERP and software expenses, which facilitate day-to-day operations and do not result in enduring benefit, should be treated as revenue expenditure. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was made on an ad-hoc basis without establishing a nexus between the expenditure and the exempt income.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal subject to the issuance of Form No. 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee stated they would withdraw the appeal once Form No. 3 is issued.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for repairs and maintenance of existing machinery are revenue in nature, not capital. It also ruled that payments to a joint venture partner, representing a diversion of income by overriding title, do not attract disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.

The Tribunal held that in earlier assessment years, the AO had made additions only on the basis of peak credit principle for similar transactions. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's working of peak cash deposits and make addition only on that basis.

The Tribunal restored the issue of comparable company selection to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the Related Party Transaction filter. It also restored the issue of rebate disallowance, directing the Assessing Officer to verify if rebates were ultimately passed on to customers based on agreements and MOUs.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to depreciation on assets converted into stock-in-trade, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow credit for advance fringe benefit tax and TDS.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision on identical facts for a previous assessment year, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition. The issue regarding the assumption of jurisdiction was deemed academic.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs are not maintainable. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.