ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2020

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 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 entitled to claim tax credit for both federal and state taxes paid in the USA under Section 91 of the Income Tax Act. It was also held that a 'Resident but not Ordinarily Resident' is covered under the ambit of Section 91.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to speculative loss, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that expenses separately accounted for by the NSEZ unit should not be allocated. The issue of interest allocation for the exempt unit was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This 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 framing an assessment on a non-existent entity due to amalgamation is a jurisdictional defect and a nullity, not a procedural irregularity. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and consequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This 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 held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence. It relied on a previous decision concerning the flagship company of the assessee group where the creditworthiness of Pabla Leasing was accepted, and also on the statement of Pabla Leasing's Managing Director.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, it was subject to a condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited was not leviable as the assessee had obtained a tax audit report prior to the due date of filing the return, and filing it with the return was not mandatory for the relevant assessment year. The appeal concerning penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not explicitly decided in the provided text, but the allowance of the Section 271B appeal suggests a favorable outcome for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited was not leviable as the assessee had obtained a tax audit report prior to the due date of filing the return, and filing it with the return was not mandatory for the relevant assessment year. The appeal concerning penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not explicitly decided in the provided text, but the allowance of the Section 271B appeal suggests a favorable outcome for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that scrap generated in the business is an integral part of business activities and forms part of business gains. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. The CIT(A) erred in disallowing a portion of the scrap sales deduction.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This 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 assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence. It relied on a previous decision concerning the flagship company of the assessee group where the creditworthiness of Pabla Leasing was accepted, and also on the statement of Pabla Leasing's Managing Director.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had utilized interest-bearing funds for giving interest-bearing advances to sister concerns, and the interest income earned was taxable. Therefore, the interest paid on such borrowings was allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii).

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's order cancelling the registration was legally invalid. It found no violation of the trust deed or Section 2(15) and noted that deficiencies in infrastructure were rectified and the trust's activities aligned with its charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated after the expiry of four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The AO's action was based on a review of existing records, not on any new tangible material.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not called for as the property was sold on 11.04.2011, which falls in Assessment Year 2012-2013, not the assessment year under appeal (2008-2009). Therefore, capital gains could not be assessed in the current year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, stating that since the additions were deleted, the default was technical and venial. Therefore, no penalty was leviable under Section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, stating that since the additions were deleted by the CIT(A), the default was technical and penalty was not leviable. The penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, stating that since the additions were deleted by the CIT(A), the default was technical and penalty was not leviable. The penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, stating that since the additions were deleted by the CIT(A), the default in complying with notices was technical and venial. Therefore, no penalty was leviable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, stating that since the additions were deleted by the CIT(A), the default was technical and penalty was not leviable. The penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that re-characterizing outstanding receivables as unsecured loans and imputing interest is not permissible as it's a notional transaction. It also noted that the assessee earned higher margins, compensating for the credit period, and that working capital adjustments already account for such impacts. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on these grounds.