ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2020

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 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 assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The CIT(DR) had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee does not claim any exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the levy of education cess, higher education cess, and NCCD could not be included in the expression "duty of excise" for exemption notification purposes, but this did not mean they were not deductible as expenses. The Tribunal also held that appellate authorities have the power to allow deductions even if not claimed in the original return, relying on High Court decisions.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee had maintained the necessary information and had not failed in reporting international transactions.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the lack of notice under Section 143(2) as not pressed. However, it set aside the other grounds concerning the additions to the file of the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that Explanations 6 and 7 to Section 9(1)(i) should be read along with Explanation 5, which was given retrospective effect. Therefore, Explanation 7 should also be considered retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the profit on sale of HTM securities was business income, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to the AO's failure to record proper satisfaction in the assessment order before levying the penalty.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not legally valid if no incriminating material is found during the search, following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on admitting additional evidence in the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the trade offers were for sales promotion and not commission, thus Section 194H was not applicable. It also found that free handsets given for marketing were business expenditure, following its own prior decisions. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO were not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal noted the undertaking provided by the assessee under sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. This undertaking voluntarily waives all rights, direct or indirect, to seek or pursue any remedy or claim in relation to the tax arrears. Considering this undertaking, the Tribunal held that the appeal should be disposed of. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Department to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if Form No. 3 was not issued to the assessee. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of whether the assessee was a direct exporter eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC, as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not legally valid if no incriminating material is found during the search, following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on admitting additional evidence in the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the trade offers were for sales promotion and not commission, thus Section 194H was not applicable. It also found that free handsets given for marketing were business expenditure, following its own prior decisions. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO were not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued to a deceased person. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Savita Kapila, the Tribunal found this to be a jurisdictional defect and not curable.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not legally valid in the absence of incriminating material found during a search. The Tribunal also noted that the lender company could not be treated as a paper company and that similar additions were deleted in a related case.

The Tribunal observed that the authorities below had not verified whether the assessee claimed any expenditure. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reasons recorded for reopening incorrectly cited Section 147(b) (which was not in existence) and lacked proper application of mind by both the Assessing Officer and the approving authority. The sanction for reopening was deemed mechanical and invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked the necessary jurisdiction over the assessee. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It also found that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover its investments, negating the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii).

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of benchmarking the international transaction for provision of ancillary management support services back to the Assessing Officer. This is to allow the assessee to provide necessary documentation and justification for the comparables and the method used.

The Tribunal disposed of the assessee's appeal in terms of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the declarations were not accepted by the Department.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to use only the trading segment for determining the arm's length price in the smart card distribution segment. For the software development segment, the Tribunal restored the issue for verification regarding the applicability of DTAA rates over DDT.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was mandatorily required to maintain its own TP documents, and relying on the documents of its associated enterprise did not constitute a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AA was rightly imposed.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the additions were based on post-search inquiries and not on seized documents, they were not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the additions were based on post-search inquiries and not on seized documents, they were not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was mandatorily required to maintain its own TP documents, and relying on the documents of its associated enterprise did not constitute a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AA was rightly imposed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The AO had taken a possible view by disallowing 20% of expenses, which implicitly treated a portion of creditors as unsubstantiated. The CIT's order was not sustainable as it lacked a finding of error and was used to grant further time for inquiry.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, following a co-ordinate bench's decision. The issue of software expenses was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after verifying evidence. The ad-hoc disallowance on personal use of expenses was deleted entirely.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowance for car hiring expenses and restored the issue of deduction for accounting error to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Department's appeal regarding service tax deduction was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C applies only to 'land or building or both' and not to 'any right in land or building' like leasehold rights. Therefore, Section 50C was wrongly invoked.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of car running and maintenance expenses, directing deletion of the addition. It also restored the issue of reversal of provisions to the AO for verification. The Department's appeal regarding service tax deduction was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of in terms of the scheme, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the DVO's valuation and the assessee's declared value was 8.92%, which is less than the prescribed 15% under Section 55A(b)(i) and Rule 111AA. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found this difference to be within acceptable estimation limits.

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

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