ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2020

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 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, noting that similar issues have been remanded in previous years, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted back to the TPO for a fresh determination of the ALP for both R&D and management-related payments under the CSA, following established directions.

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 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 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 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 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 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 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on estimated income. Since the addition was based on an estimated GP ratio, the penalty is not sustainable.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 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 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 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 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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

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 appeals. The appeals were 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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 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 based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

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 Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

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 Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

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

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 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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

The Income Tax Appellate 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 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 allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that activities at customer terminals constituted 'manufacture' or 'production' for the purpose of deduction. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal noted that the respondent (Income Tax Officer) had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and decided to consign the appeal to records. The dismissal is conditional upon the dispute not being resolved under the Act.

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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.