ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal held that the issue of 30% deduction on rental income and the disallowance of legal and professional charges were covered by its earlier orders in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance and dismissed the Department's appeal as it was below the monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Vishwas Act. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to reinstitution if the settlement fails.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of all three additions, finding no perversity in the findings regarding the genuineness of foreign office expenses, the revenue nature of quota expenses, and the double taxation of advance recovery. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

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

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

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

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

The Tribunal held that payments received by the taxpayer for the 'Altea system' could not be characterized as 'royalty' under the Act or the Indo-Spain Treaty. Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not warranted as tax was deductible at source and no addition sustained.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the penalty amount had already been paid. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

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

The Tribunal recalled its earlier ex-parte order due to the assessee's sufficient reason for non-appearance and the interest of justice. Subsequently, the assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that payments received by the taxpayer for the 'Altea system' could not be characterized as 'royalty' under the Act or the Indo-Spain Treaty. Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not warranted as tax was deductible at source and no addition sustained.

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

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees paid to DTT were for the benefit of the assessee's business and thus allowable. Similarly, the legal fees paid to M/s Dua & Associates were also found to be incurred for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the matrimonial/penal proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law against the assessee's family constituted sufficient reason beyond the assessee's control to condone the delay. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that payments received by the taxpayer for the 'Altea system' could not be characterized as 'royalty' under the Act or the Indo-Spain Treaty. Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not warranted as tax was deductible at source and no addition sustained.

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 payments received by the taxpayer for the 'Altea system' could not be characterized as 'royalty' under the Act or the Indo-Spain Treaty. Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not warranted as tax was deductible at source and no addition sustained.

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 assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

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

The Tribunal held that the issue of 30% deduction on rental income and the disallowance of legal and professional charges were covered by its earlier orders in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance and dismissed the Department's appeal as it was below the monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had maintained complete records of donors' identities and particulars. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing that the AO and CIT(A) had verified the donations and found them to be genuine.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on surmises and presumptions without concrete evidence or material found during the search of the assessee. The company's audited accounts showed regular business income, contradicting the shell company theory.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the foreign commission agents were not in the nature of fees for technical services. Since the services were rendered outside India and payments were made outside India, the provisions of Section 195 were not applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the taxes. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection also became infructuous.

The Tribunal reduced the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 2 lakhs, finding that investments were made from own funds. The additional grounds regarding subsidies and education cess were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision was based on precedents from the jurisdictional High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, this was subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue. This dismissal was conditional, allowing for restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the disputed issues were covered by earlier decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT and the Hon'ble High Court/Supreme Court. Consequently, all grounds of appeal were decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue. This dismissal was conditional, allowing for restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.