ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2021

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 since the Indian subsidiary (RIPL) was already remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profit to the PE was warranted. Even when deducting the remuneration paid to RIPL from the attributed profits, no taxable income remained.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify the limb under which the proceedings were initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 appeals. This was based on the assessee opting 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 this request.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

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

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be consigned to records and treated as dismissed. However, it allowed the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify the limb under which the proceedings were initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

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

The Tribunal held that no income had accrued to the assessee in the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The CIT(A) had rightly considered the material on record and the submissions of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the collaboration agreement dated April 28, 2006, and the assignment cum nomination agreement dated July 21, 2006, were inextricably linked and conditional. The right to receive the consideration of Rs. 86 crores was contingent upon the fulfillment of various conditions, including the successful and timely completion of the project by Emaar MGF and satisfaction of PCL. The amount received was also partly a refundable/adjustable security deposit. Therefore, the income did not accrue on the date of signing the agreements but only upon the satisfaction of these conditions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered the income for taxation in subsequent years and that the AO had previously accepted similar explanations in AY 2009-2010, highlighting a lack of consistency. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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

The tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it 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 appeal.

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 appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Noida Assessing Officer was not legally valid, rendering the assessment order void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify the limb under which the proceedings were initiated (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to record and treat it as dismissed. However, this dismissal is conditional, allowing the assessee to seek reinstitution if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme does not resolve the tax dispute.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the source of the cash deposits. The explanation provided by Shri P.S. Narayana was found contradictory and unbelievable, leading to the conclusion that the assessee could not explain the unexplained investment.

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 dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the majority of shares were held for long periods, indicating an intention for appreciation rather than trading. Therefore, the gains should be treated as capital gains and not business income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the Indian subsidiary (RIPL) was already remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profit to the PE was warranted. Even when deducting the remuneration paid to RIPL from the attributed profits, no taxable income remained.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and bad in law due to the AO's failure to independently apply his mind to the information received and the recording of incorrect reasons. Consequently, the reopening and all additions were quashed.

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