ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2020

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the seized document did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal held that if the purported PE is remunerated on an arm's length basis, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee's Indian operations. Additionally, interest under Section 234B is not leviable on foreign companies where the entire income is subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that if the purported PE is remunerated on an arm's length basis, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee's Indian operations. Additionally, interest under Section 234B is not leviable on foreign companies where the entire income is subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge his onus to explain the source and nature of the cash deposits. The claim of acting as a commission agent was not substantiated with evidence, and the story was considered an afterthought.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147/148 was bad in law as the AO did not apply his mind independently and relied on borrowed satisfaction. Furthermore, the addition made under section 68 was not sustainable on merits due to lack of proper examination of evidence and reliance on surmises.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, noting that a coordinate bench had already deleted the addition related to the foreign bank account itself in earlier years. Therefore, no notional interest could be added. The Tribunal also observed that the revenue has other options and extended time limits to pursue the matter if ownership is established.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The CIT(A) quashed the assessment order, holding that the jurisdiction under Section 153C was not properly assumed because the satisfaction note was not recorded in the file of the searched person. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the satisfaction note lacked the necessary basis and was not recorded in the searched person's file.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to submit material for verification of the carry forward of short-term capital loss, remanding the matter to the AO. The Tribunal also allowed the addition on account of unexplained investments, club expenses, and directed deletion of these additions.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's deletion of disallowances for prior period expenses and club entrance fees was justified. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal found the enhancement of addition by the DRP unsustainable due to a violation of natural justice and remitted the issue for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order before receiving the assessee's final reply and that the assessee had been granted 12AA registration, indicating charitable objects. Therefore, the matter required re-consideration.

The Tribunal held that the restriction of the cost of the acquired business database and the consequent disallowance of depreciation were incorrect. Depreciation on goodwill was also allowed, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending, hence it was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's deletion of disallowances for prior period expenses and club entrance fees was justified. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal found the enhancement of addition by the DRP unsustainable due to a violation of natural justice and remitted the issue for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the sale deed clearly indicated that only Rs. 30 lakhs was paid at the time of execution, with the remaining Rs. 20 lakhs to be paid later to redeem the mortgage. The assessee's share of the actual payment was Rs. 15 lakhs plus registration charges, which was less than the amount accepted by the AO as agricultural income.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148. However, it set aside the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding the determination of profit, remanding the issue for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- needs verification due to the absence of proof of deposit. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 2.20 crore, which was not part of the original reasons for reopening, will have a contemporaneous effect based on the outcome of the verification of the Rs. 5,00,000/- issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. The dismissal was with liberty to the Department to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if Form 3 was not issued to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32. It also relied on High Court decisions to allow depreciation on customer contracts when acquired as part of a running business.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are not sustainable if international transactions have been found to be at arm's length. The existence of a PE becomes academic in such cases, and the reassessment notices cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32. It also relied on High Court decisions to allow depreciation on customer contracts when acquired as part of a running business.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32. It also relied on High Court decisions to allow depreciation on customer contracts when acquired as part of a running business.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are not sustainable if international transactions have been found to be at arm's length. The existence of a PE becomes academic in such cases, and the reassessment notices cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are not sustainable if international transactions have been found to be at arm's length. The existence of a PE becomes academic in such cases, and the reassessment notices cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection. The dismissal was with liberty to the Department to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if Form 3 was not issued to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation for agricultural land is not taxable as capital gains under Section 10(37) of the Act, directing deletion of this addition. Regarding cash borrowings, the Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of repayment through banking channels was not substantiated, and thus remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are not sustainable if international transactions have been found to be at arm's length. The existence of a PE becomes academic in such cases, and the reassessment notices cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 are not sustainable if international transactions have been found to be at arm's length. The existence of a PE becomes academic in such cases, and the reassessment notices cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for the sale of software is not royalty. It clarified that the transaction involves the transfer of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself or the right to use the copyright, thus not giving rise to royalty income.

The Tribunal held that MIPL is not a DAPE, following its own previous decisions. Consequently, no income is attributable to the Indian operations. The Tribunal also upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision regarding the allowability of commission paid to MIPL.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32. It also relied on High Court decisions to allow depreciation on customer contracts when acquired as part of a running business.

The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeals in terms of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. This decision was made subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activities, not just distribution, and therefore, the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method, rejecting the assessee's use of the Resale Price Method (RPM).

The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeals in terms of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. This disposal is subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without specific instances of personal expenditure or defects in audited books are not sustainable. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were bad in law as they did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the taxpayer were not an international transaction between the taxpayer and its AE. It was found that the benefit of AMP activities accrued to the taxpayer itself, and the TPO failed to prove the existence of an international transaction. Therefore, the addition made on account of AMP expenses was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses capitalized to plant and machinery are eligible for depreciation as they are part of the actual cost. It also held that share application money received in an earlier assessment year cannot be added under Section 68 in the current year. Sundry creditors' non-compliance with Section 133(6) notices does not automatically make the amounts unexplained if the assessee discharges the primary onus.

The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses capitalized to plant and machinery are eligible for depreciation as part of the actual cost. It also held that additions under Section 68 for share application money and sundry creditors were not warranted as the amounts were received in prior years or the assessee had discharged its onus.

The assessee's counsel submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds related to non-compete fees, stating it was decided against the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to the security premium account, finding no infirmity in the order.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were bad in law as they did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed.