ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but should be treated as business income. The Tribunal noted that copyright and broadcasting reproduction rights are distinct legal rights recognized separately by law.

The Tribunal held that since the foundational additions (transfer pricing adjustments) were deleted in prior years, the superstructure (penalty) should also fall. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the interest was received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. If confirmed, it would be treated as a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals, which the Revenue's counsel also agreed was below the threshold.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. The inconsistency in the Assessing Officer's approach regarding the default also rendered the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for both grounds of appeal. For the first ground, it restored the issue of allowability of expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the second ground, it also restored the issue of the sham transaction to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had opted for the DCF method for valuing unquoted equity shares as prescribed under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules and obtained a valuation report from a chartered accountant, thereby fulfilling the requirements of the rule. The Tribunal noted that when the assessee opts for a specific valuation methodology prescribed by the rules, the AO/CIT(A) do not have the power or authority to change such methodology and adopt a different one, such as the book value method. The Tribunal observed that the AO was unable to pinpoint specific inaccuracies in the DCF valuation report, other than the general observation that projected results did not match actual results. It was reasoned that variations between projected and actual figures are expected and do not necessarily invalidate a valuation report, which is inherently based on future projections and market conditions at a specific point in time. The Tribunal cited the principle that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it must be done in that manner alone. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (177 ITD 809) which held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute their own value for the value determined by the prescribed methods. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the net asset value method was deemed unjustified and liable to be deleted. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, when deposited before the due date of filing the return, is not justified. It followed the precedents set by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

The Tribunal held that since the foundational additions (transfer pricing adjustments) were deleted in prior years, the superstructure (penalty) should also fall. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The additions were deleted as no evidence of accommodation entries was found.

The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but should be treated as business income. The Tribunal noted that copyright and broadcasting reproduction rights are distinct legal rights recognized separately by law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as it was engaged in the integrated business of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains. It also allowed the deletion of additions related to personal expenses and Section 14A disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the deletion of the addition for contractor claims. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding depreciation on license fees, treating it as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was not sustainable as the issue had been considered in original assessment and Section 154 proceedings, and there was no new tangible material. The audit objection was not considered fresh information in this context.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as it was engaged in the integrated business of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains. It also allowed the deletion of additions related to personal expenses and Section 14A disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in allowing the deduction under Section 10AA. It relied on various judicial precedents and CBDT instructions regarding successor entities and the calculation of deductions.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served on the assessee within the prescribed time limit and at the correct address. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were illegal and the assessment order was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the payments received for bandwidth services are not taxable as royalty. This is because the India-Singapore Tax Treaty does not define 'royalty' to include transmission by satellite, cable, optic fiber, or similar technology, and the treaty provisions are more beneficial to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to frame assessment under section 153A of the Act for a completed assessment. The addition was deleted in line with the Jurisdictional High Court's judgment.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment order passed after the due date is void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The additions were deleted as no evidence of accommodation entries was found.

The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but should be treated as business income. The Tribunal noted that copyright and broadcasting reproduction rights are distinct legal rights recognized separately by law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the audited financial statements during assessment proceedings due to factors beyond its control. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment considering the audited financials.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, agreeing that the income from letting out the industrial shed and office space should be treated as income from house property. Consequently, the standard deduction was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee do not fall under the purview of managerial, technical, or consultancy services, and therefore, the payments for freight and logistics cannot be treated as technical services. The Tribunal also found that Section 9(1)(i) was not attracted as no income accrued or arose from business connection in India.

The Tribunal held that the payments for bandwidth services are not taxable as royalty under the India-Singapore Tax Treaty. The Tribunal emphasized that amendments to domestic tax laws cannot override the provisions of a tax treaty, especially when the treaty definition of royalty does not include such services.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2008-09 was bad in law as it was passed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C, despite incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the search of a group company. No notice under Section 153C was issued for this assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but should be treated as business income. The Tribunal noted that copyright and broadcasting reproduction rights are distinct legal rights recognized separately by law.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2008-09 was bad in law as it was passed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C, despite incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the search of a group company. No notice under Section 153C was issued for this assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the payments received for bandwidth services are not taxable as royalty. This is because the India-Singapore Tax Treaty does not define 'royalty' to include transmission by satellite, cable, optic fiber, or similar technology, and the treaty provisions are more beneficial to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the Commissioner, not the Assessing Officer, which is beyond the statutory powers vested in the Assessing Officer under section 142(2C). Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was held to be void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing departmental appeals.

The Tribunal restored the issues of interest disallowance and security charges to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The issue of notional rent was also restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding whether the property was let out or vacant.

The Tribunal held that since the foundational additions (transfer pricing adjustments) were deleted in prior years, the superstructure (penalty) should also fall. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.