ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was technically correct in dismissing the appeal as the grounds did not arise from the order under appeal. However, to provide substantial justice, the assessee was granted liberty to file an appeal against the earlier rectification order with a condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the manually filed appeal was correct as it was non-est. However, the electronically filed appeal needed to be disposed of.

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 Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty could not survive. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Income Tax Appellate 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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 allowed the claim for depreciation on leased assets subject to verification by the AO that lessees have not claimed depreciation. For the disallowance under Section 14A for book profits, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide in line with previous Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal allowed adjustments for higher import costs, directed the AO to allow depreciation on WDV of software and capital expenditure as per DRP directions, and allowed the claim for bad debts written off and advances written off. The appeal was allowed in part.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal in terms of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, as the assessee had availed the benefit of the scheme to settle the dispute. This is subject to approval by the Competent Authority.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance was made on an ad hoc basis without proper examination. The CIT(A) also failed to adequately examine the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO, based solely on a hard disk found during a third-party search without corroborative evidence, was not justified. The Tribunal followed previous decisions where similar additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of jewellery should be deleted, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain and CBDT Instruction No. 1916, as the jewellery was explained as belonging to family members and nothing contrary was brought on record by the Revenue. The addition on account of cash was upheld as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for its availability.

The Tribunal held that the TPO exceeded his jurisdiction by determining the arm's length price at Nil for cost-to-cost reimbursement of services. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for availing services and that the payment made was a valid business expenditure.

The Tribunal considered various grounds of appeal, including additions related to work in progress, disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii), job work charges, Section 14A, commodity losses, and significant adjustments to statutory deductions under Sections 80IB/80IC. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of alleged bogus purchases from specific suppliers.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had incorrectly calculated the total weight of jewellery and had not given credit for jewellery held by the assessee's son. Granting credit for the son would leave no unexplained jewellery.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the outstanding receivables beyond the agreed period constituted a separate international transaction. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting the absence of working capital adjustments by the assessee and the clear terms of the service agreement.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the rejection of books was justified due to lack of supporting bills, the Tribunal found the 8% net profit rate excessive given the business nature and past profit margins. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 2% net profit rate instead.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the rejection of books was justified due to lack of supporting bills, the Tribunal found the 8% net profit rate excessive given the business nature and past profit margins. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 2% net profit rate instead.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the rejection of books was justified due to lack of supporting bills, the Tribunal found the 8% net profit rate excessive given the business nature and past profit margins. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 2% net profit rate instead.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against CBDT circulars setting monetary limits for appeals. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that Section 10A(3) regarding bringing export proceeds within 6 months is not applicable to Section 10AA as it was conspicuously omitted in the relevant subsection. The Tribunal also noted that the AO should have made inquiries regarding the auditor's remark that certain information was not applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the rejection of books was justified due to lack of supporting bills, the Tribunal found the 8% net profit rate excessive given the business nature and past profit margins. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 2% net profit rate instead.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the rejection of books was justified due to lack of supporting bills, the Tribunal found the 8% net profit rate excessive given the business nature and past profit margins. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 2% net profit rate instead.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure cannot be considered an international transaction unless first established as such. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year, the Tribunal allowed the grounds related to the transfer pricing adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was unjustified as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years. The seized documents were not considered incriminating as they merely listed share transfers without indicating unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the creditors. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not conducted adequate inquiries into the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 47 days was due to the unprofessional conduct of the assessee's earlier counsel and the time taken to engage a new one. The Tribunal condoned the delay, setting aside the orders of the authorities below.