ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice due to the non-service of statutory notices and lack of opportunity for the assessee to represent her case. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-calculate the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) based on annual reports, consider certain income and expenses as operating/non-operating, exclude foreign exchange fluctuation costs, and account for the voluntary transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal also directed that the adjustment should be proportionate to the international transaction value and that brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation should be verified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and awaited Form 3. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude certain comparables and directed the TPO to re-examine others for AY 2012-13. The Department's appeal was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude certain comparables and directed the TPO to re-examine others for AY 2012-13. The Department's appeal was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to approach the tribunal again if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme fails for technical reasons.

The CIT(A) held that the AO's addition based on an inspector's report was untenable, especially when the assessee provided documentary evidence like PAN, ITR, and ROC registration. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had substantiated the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude certain comparables and directed the TPO to re-examine others for AY 2012-13. The Department's appeal was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's interpretation regarding royalty and PE was not acceptable. It directed the revenue not to tax royalty income in accordance with the High Court's judgment and allowed TDS credit after verification.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the deduction under Section 80HHE, holding that 90% of foreign exchange gains should not be reduced from export profits. Other general grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the deduction under Section 80HHE, holding that 90% of foreign exchange gains should not be reduced from export profits. Other general grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's interpretation regarding royalty and PE was not acceptable. It directed the revenue not to tax royalty income in accordance with the High Court's judgment and allowed TDS credit after verification.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure does not constitute an international transaction for the purpose of transfer pricing adjustments. It also held that royalty payments were allowable as per the agreement, and the revenue failed to provide reasons to disallow them.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts was not justified as the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer were not valid. Furthermore, the old currency notes found in the locker had no intrinsic value at the time of discovery and thus could not be considered unexplained money.

The Tribunal held that horticulture expenses and deferred revenue expenditure incurred for market surveys related to business expansion are allowable. The appeals were decided based on these findings.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's interpretation regarding royalty and PE was not acceptable. It directed the revenue not to tax royalty income in accordance with the High Court's judgment and allowed TDS credit after verification.

The Tribunal held that horticulture expenses and deferred revenue expenditure incurred for market surveys related to business expansion are allowable. The appeals were decided based on these findings.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's interpretation regarding royalty and PE was not acceptable. It directed the revenue not to tax royalty income in accordance with the High Court's judgment and allowed TDS credit after verification.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's interpretation regarding royalty and PE was not acceptable. It directed the revenue not to tax royalty income in accordance with the High Court's judgment and allowed TDS credit after verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO made a 'borrowed satisfaction' without applying his mind to the information received and conducted a roving inquiry beyond the scope of reassessment. The initiation of reassessment proceedings was deemed illegal and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that NRI expenses are fully allowable and not head office expenses, following its own prior decisions. It also ruled that commission on credit cards issued by foreign branches and used in India is not taxable in India if already offered by the Indian branch as an acquiring bank. Club expenses were also allowed as business expenses.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's interpretation regarding royalty and PE was not acceptable. It directed the revenue not to tax royalty income in accordance with the High Court's judgment and allowed TDS credit after verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in some form of business activity, evidenced by cash deposits and withdrawals, and importantly, VAT payments. Therefore, the entire cash deposits could not be treated as undisclosed income.

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 accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The CIT(Appeals) rightly admitted additional evidence and deleted the addition as the stock transfer was recorded in the books of accounts due to a demerger. The transfer was disclosed in the financial statements and balance sheet.

The Tribunal held that interest expense disallowance should be limited to the net interest after considering interest received, and that Section 14A disallowance requires AO's satisfaction, which was absent. The disallowance on purchases was not sustained due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to review an assessment order passed under Section 144C, even if it was pursuant to DRP directions. The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the provisions for slow-moving inventory and free service coupons, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the land was agricultural or to substantiate the cost of acquisition and improvement. Regarding Section 50C, the assessee did not object to the stamp valuation at the time of registration, rendering the addition valid.

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 appeals. The appeals were accordingly 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 to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowances. Regarding interest expenditure, it was held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover interest-free advances to sister concerns, following the Reliance Industries Ltd. precedent.

The Tribunal found that the loans on which interest was disallowed might pertain to preceding assessment years. If the loans were from earlier years and no disallowance was made then, the same interest could not be disallowed in the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that interest expense disallowance should be limited to the net interest after considering interest received, and that Section 14A disallowance requires AO's satisfaction, which was absent. The disallowance on purchases was not sustained due to lack of evidence.

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

The Tribunal held that the audit report in Form 10CCB was not filed by the due date of the return of income, which is a mandatory condition for claiming the deduction. Therefore, the denial of deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Viswas Scheme to settle the dispute. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal, finding that the challenge to the reopening of assessment was a jurisdictional issue. It was held that the assessee had disclosed the Rs 4 crore transaction and the resulting capital loss in the revised return, contrary to the AO's belief.

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 accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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