ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2020

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not brought sufficient evidence to prove that more than the recorded sale deed amount was paid for the property. It also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted similar additions in earlier years in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it 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 Assessing Officer had not brought sufficient evidence to prove that more than the recorded sale deed amount was paid for the property. It also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted similar additions in earlier years in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not brought sufficient evidence to prove that more than the recorded sale deed amount was paid for the property. It also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted similar additions in earlier years in favour of the assessee.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions, following its own decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for verification, and the levy of interest under Section 234B was dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal agreed to the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rendered infructuous.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, following its own precedents where similar adjustments were deleted. It also allowed the appeal concerning the Section 14A disallowance, noting the Assessing Officer's failure to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 14A(2).

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular is applicable to pending appeals.

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to its bonafide belief, past history of no penalties, and the illiterate nature of its members operating in a rural area. Consequently, the penalties were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 are not applicable to block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIVB. However, in this case, the Assessing Officer reopened the regular assessment, not the block assessment, and the assessee failed to prove that the specific accommodation entries were already considered in the block assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the additions/disallowances on which it was based were either deleted by higher authorities or involved differences of opinion rather than concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. The penalty notice also lacked specificity.

The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, decided that registration charges collected from buyers for conveyance deeds are not income of the assessee. The amounts collected are held as a liability and are utilized for registration expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on the application of income, which should be examined at the assessment stage. The Tribunal noted the similarity of the assessee's objects with other organizations granted registration.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issues concerning foreign exchange loss and depreciation on goodwill had been decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for previous assessment years. The depreciation on goodwill was set aside to the Assessing Officer to work out the appropriate amount.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding registration charges had been decided in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches for earlier assessment years, and the revenue had accepted those orders. Therefore, the Tribunal followed the precedent.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not verify it. Furthermore, the objections raised by the assessees against the reopening were not disposed of prior to the passing of the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not verify it. Furthermore, the objections raised by the assessees against the reopening were not disposed of prior to the passing of the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not verify it. Furthermore, the objections raised by the assessees against the reopening were not disposed of prior to the passing of the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not verify it. Furthermore, the objections raised by the assessees against the reopening were not disposed of prior to the passing of the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not verify it. Furthermore, the objections raised by the assessees against the reopening were not disposed of prior to the passing of the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not verify it. Furthermore, the objections raised by the assessees against the reopening were not disposed of prior to the passing of the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the information received and did not verify it. Furthermore, the objections raised by the assessees against the reopening were not disposed of prior to the passing of the reassessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to its bonafide belief, past history of no penalties, and the illiterate nature of its members in a rural area. Therefore, the penalties were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued prematurely, before the assessee filed its return of income. This procedural defect renders the reassessment invalid.

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

The Tribunal held that the payments represented reimbursement of expenses on a cost-to-cost basis and were not subject to TDS under Section 195. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not justified as the assessee company did not exist on the date the notice was issued. The notice was issued in the name of a non-existing entity.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. Since the disallowance of freight charges was based solely on the absence of bills and not on any incriminating material, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution occurred after the AO/TPO/DRP orders. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication in light of the MAP resolution and a previous DRP order.

The Tribunal held that a consistent view has been taken by the Tribunal in similar matters in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the addition made on account of Section 40A(3) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. Since the disallowance of freight charges was based solely on the absence of bills and not on any incriminating material, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question and accepted the assessee's suo motu disallowance. It also found that the conditions for levying penalty were not met and that Section 43A was not attracted for the foreign exchange losses. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is free to arrange its business and enter into separate agreements for property letting and services/equipment hiring. The Revenue cannot dictate the form of agreement or prevent such bifurcation if it's legally permissible.

The Tribunal held that no adjustment on account of interest on receivables from associated enterprises can be made, following its own consistent decisions and High Court rulings. The issue of foreign tax credit was restored to the AO for verification and allowance.