ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on surmises and presumptions, as the loans were reflected as such in the books and were repaid. Simply because the husband treated his loan as a gift does not mean unrelated parties would do the same.

The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular. The Assessee's appeal was allowed as the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the intermediary services did not meet the 'Make Available' clause of the India-Sweden DTAA, thus not qualifying as FTS. The Tribunal also found errors in the DRP's assessment regarding the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular. The Assessee's appeal was allowed as the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the information used by the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 pertained to a different individual, Amarpreet Kaur, and not the assessee. Therefore, the reasons recorded were based on factually incorrect information, rendering the reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO's premise that no return was filed was factually incorrect. The approval for reopening was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal found that the AO had adequately examined the issues concerning partner remuneration, capital gains, and partner capital accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT had exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking Section 263 as the AO's order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the 'Ikrarnama' was not properly examined and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to prove its authenticity. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, which argued that the penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s 271 was defective as it did not strike off either limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal held the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was considered not maintainable.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to approach for restoration if the dispute was not settled.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of 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 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 appeal. The appeal was 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 notice u/s 148 was properly served on the assessee. However, regarding the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, as the section under which the interest was received was not clear.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs.

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 treated the appeals as withdrawn due to the assessee's intention to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee is at liberty to seek restoration if the scheme settlement fails.

The ITAT noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and clarified that this would apply to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that remuneration received by a partner from a firm is taxable as business income. Expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning this remuneration are allowable business expenditures.

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions, following its own prior decisions for the assessee. Issues related to MAT credit and TDS were remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that TDS deducted is deemed to be income received by the recipient and is considered as an amount paid by the assessee on behalf of the recipient. Therefore, even under the cash system, it cannot be said that the TDS amount was not paid by the assessee.

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

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

The Tribunal held that Section 10A deduction is calculated on the overall profit of the undertaking, and domestic sales profit cannot be taxed separately. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on foreign travel expenses, finding them to be for business development and employee training.

The Tribunal held that passing assessment orders under section 143(3) implies that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were condoned. Therefore, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) were not justified.

The Tribunal held that TDS deducted is deemed to be income received by the recipient and is considered as an amount paid by the assessee on behalf of the recipient. Therefore, even under the cash system, it cannot be said that the TDS amount was not paid by the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that passing assessment orders under section 143(3) implies that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were condoned. Therefore, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that passing assessment orders under section 143(3) implies that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were condoned. Therefore, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) were not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 10A deduction is calculated on the overall profit of the undertaking, and domestic sales profit cannot be taxed separately. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on foreign travel expenses, finding them to be for business development and employee training.

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

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's submission that the dispute regarding TP adjustments with US AEs was settled via Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). For other TP adjustments and corporate grounds, the assessee intended to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, with liberty to revive the appeals if settlement failed.

The Tribunal held that passing assessment orders under section 143(3) implies that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were condoned. Therefore, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(b) were not justified.

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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee due to the intention to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the disputes are not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.