ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2020

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

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

The Tribunal held that confessions obtained during search proceedings without reference to incriminating material or undisclosed income are not valid. Enhancements made by the CIT(A) without basis were also quashed.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by including the LTCG in taxable income as the sale deeds were cancelled by the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude the LTCG and refund the tax paid.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion undertaken by the assessee qualified it for 100% deduction under Section 80IC, as per Supreme Court precedent. It also ruled that ad-hoc disallowances made without specific reasons or evidence of personal use are unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the income attributable to the PE should be deleted as the assessee's activities were offshore and the sale occurred outside India. The Tribunal also directed verification regarding employee secondment for PE determination. The addition on account of FTS was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that confessions obtained during search proceedings without reference to incriminating material or undisclosed income are not valid. Enhancements made by the CIT(A) without basis were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by including the LTCG in taxable income, as the sale deeds were cancelled by the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude the LTCG and refund the tax paid.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by including the LTCG in taxable income as the sale deeds were cancelled by the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude the LTCG and refund the tax paid.

The Tribunal held that confessions obtained during search proceedings without reference to incriminating material or undisclosed income are not valid. Enhancements made by the CIT(A) without basis were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's selection of the tested party and the comparable companies was not properly reasoned. The Tribunal restored the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the TPO for fresh analysis and verification.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's selection of the tested party and the comparable companies was not properly reasoned. The Tribunal restored the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the TPO for fresh analysis and verification.

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 held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were unsustainable in law because the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on any seized material found during the search. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and requested the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The assessee requested withdrawal of appeals as they opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the request.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and submitted Forms 1 and 2. Consequently, the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 3682/Del/2019) was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued by the designated authority. Regarding the revenue's appeal (ITA No. 5231/Del/2019), the Tribunal examined the deletion of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. The assessee had presented an agreement to sell a property for Rs. 9 crore, with an earnest money of Rs. 1.80 crore received from M/s True Value Contractors (P) Ltd. The buyer later informed of their inability to make the balance payment and agreed to forfeiture. The AO had questioned the transaction's genuineness and market value. However, the CIT(A) relied on additional evidence, including SBI certificates, which corroborated the receipt of Rs. 1.80 crore from True Value Contractors (P) Ltd. The Tribunal found that the AO erred in holding the amount as unexplained income and that the forfeiture was not taxable as 'income from other sources' under Section 56(2)(ix) for AY 2014-15, but rather governed by Section 51 of the Act, which mandates reduction from the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were unsustainable in law because the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on any seized material found during the search. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that confessions obtained during search proceedings without reference to incriminating material or undisclosed income are not valid. Enhancements made by the CIT(A) without basis were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that confessions obtained during search proceedings without reference to incriminating material or undisclosed income are not valid. Enhancements made by the CIT(A) without basis were also quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and submitted Forms 1 and 2. Consequently, the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 3682/Del/2019) was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued by the designated authority. Regarding the revenue's appeal (ITA No. 5231/Del/2019), the Tribunal examined the deletion of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. The assessee had presented an agreement to sell a property for Rs. 9 crore, with an earnest money of Rs. 1.80 crore received from M/s True Value Contractors (P) Ltd. The buyer later informed of their inability to make the balance payment and agreed to forfeiture. The AO had questioned the transaction's genuineness and market value. However, the CIT(A) relied on additional evidence, including SBI certificates, which corroborated the receipt of Rs. 1.80 crore from True Value Contractors (P) Ltd. The Tribunal found that the AO erred in holding the amount as unexplained income and that the forfeiture was not taxable as 'income from other sources' under Section 56(2)(ix) for AY 2014-15, but rather governed by Section 51 of the Act, which mandates reduction from the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursements were not fees for technical services as the expatriate employees were under the taxpayer's control and their salaries were subject to TDS under Section 192. Regarding receivables, the Tribunal directed the TPO to follow the principle of consistency from earlier years.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that confessions obtained during search proceedings without reference to incriminating material or undisclosed income are not valid. Enhancements made by the CIT(A) without basis were also quashed.

The CIT(A) allowed the Section 10A deduction, holding that electronic filing exempted the assessee from filing Form 56F with the return and that the form could be filed before the CIT(A). The Tribunal affirmed this, finding the assessee eligible for the deduction and having made due compliance.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys Technologies Ltd. and Tata Elxis Ltd. as comparables due to significant dissimilarities in turnover, asset base, and business profile. It also deleted the adjustment for outstanding receivables from associated enterprises, as working capital adjustments already accounted for such factors.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursements were not fees for technical services as the expatriate employees were under the taxpayer's control and their salaries were subject to TDS under Section 192. Regarding receivables, the Tribunal directed the TPO to follow the principle of consistency from earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the AO at Ghaziabad lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the assessee resided and filed returns in Meerut. Furthermore, the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing the assessment on an issue not covered by the original reasons for reopening.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and consequently consigned the appeal to records. The dismissal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

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

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the allowability of Rs. 10 Lakhs in legal fees and security charges. The assessee must prove these expenses were wholly for business purposes and that the business had not ceased to exist.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal because the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not furnished to the assessee or produced before the Tribunal. The revenue was given liberty to approach the Tribunal if the reasons are traced.

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

The Tribunal allowed deductions under Sections 80I & 80IA, and the netting of income and expenditure during the trial run of a new plant. It also allowed foreign exchange fluctuations on revenue accounts and depreciation on certain assets. However, it dismissed the claim for amortization of leasehold expenses and partly allowed the disallowance under Section 14A.

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

The assessee has opted to settle the tax disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions were either related to earlier years or sufficiently substantiated by the assessee with documentary evidence through proper banking channels. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A) was justified in admitting fresh evidence.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by the Principal Commissioner. The notices issued during the national lockdown period did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

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

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the income attributable to the PE should be deleted as the assessee's activities were offshore and the sale occurred outside India. The Tribunal also directed verification regarding employee secondment for PE determination. The addition on account of FTS was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's subsidiary, MIPL, was not a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the assessee, as previously decided in earlier assessment years. Consequently, no income could be attributed to the PE, and disallowances related to commission were not justified.