ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the settlement of the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the tax dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was acknowledged.

The tribunal held that the discount offered on pre-paid recharge coupons to distributors was in the nature of a sale and purchase transaction, not commission, and thus Section 194H was not applicable. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default. The tribunal also ruled that roaming charges did not constitute fees for technical services, negating the need for TDS under Section 194J.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal deleted additions made on the basis of a 'dumb document' as there was no corroborative evidence. It also quashed the reassessment proceedings as reopening was found to be bad in law due to lack of proper application of mind and denial of cross-examination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as per the assessee's decision to settle the dispute.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue agreed to treat the appeals as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as withdrawn due to the opting for the Vivad se Viswas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to recall the order if Form 3 was not issued.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form No. 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn as per Section 4(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Piramal Healthcare Ltd. and WAPCOS Ltd. were not comparable companies for ALP determination due to functional dissimilarity and government ownership, respectively. Consequently, the adjustment related to these comparables was excluded.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the expenses were excessive or unreasonable, or not for business purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Piramal Healthcare Ltd. and WAPCOS Ltd. were not comparable companies for ALP determination due to functional dissimilarity and government ownership, respectively. Consequently, the adjustment related to these comparables was excluded.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular applies to pending appeals.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were 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 held that the reassessment proceedings were not justified because the Delhi High Court had previously ordered the reversal of sweat equity share entries. Therefore, the basis for taxing the value of these shares as income was nullified.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which applies to pending appeals, makes the Revenue's appeal non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 153D was invalid, rendering the assessment orders passed under Section 153A void. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of unexplained jewellery was justified, as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of purchases supported by bank statements and capital accounts. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the invalidity of the assessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. However, for issues of short deduction of TDS, the Tribunal followed the Calcutta High Court ruling in S.K. Tekriwal, holding that no disallowance is warranted.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. However, for issues of short deduction of TDS, the Tribunal followed the Calcutta High Court ruling in S.K. Tekriwal, holding that no disallowance is warranted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance on commission expenses by 50%. For unsecured loans, it deleted the addition for one party based on sufficient evidence, remanded the issue for another party to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, and confirmed the addition for a third party. Interest disallowances were adjusted accordingly.

The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed. This is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that corporate membership fees paid to a club are revenue expenditure. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samtel Colour Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that the membership fee paid by the company is an allowable expenditure.

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.