ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the TPO. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustment on reimbursement expenses, finding no defects in the evidence submitted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, leading to the settlement of the dispute. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to approach the Tribunal if the dispute could not be settled for technical reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the dispute settlement under the scheme failed for technical reasons.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the subsequent settlement order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement under the scheme failed for technical reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's cross-objection was withdrawn as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to approach the Tribunal if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was a trade advance arising from a commercial transaction for the sale of FSI, and therefore, it did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) as a deemed dividend. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to the records and treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration and received Form-III under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed, subject to a condition. If the dispute is not resolved under the Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment on a non-existing entity. The merger of the appellant company with GE India Industrial Private Ltd had been approved by the NCLT.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable to all pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, 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 allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the issues were settled under the Vivad Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the department had already issued Form No. 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue was given liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration and received Form-III under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision for an earlier assessment year, directed the AO to estimate the profit at 3% of the total turnover. This was based on the consistent acceptance of profit ratios between 1.60% and 3.31% in previous assessments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's accounting policy of recognizing talk time revenue upon actual usage, consistent with past practice and affirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court, was acceptable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on its previous decisions for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. It found that the assessee's activities were for promoting the handloom sector and not for profit, thus not attracting the proviso to Section 2(15).

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the deductibility of 'Education Cess' and directed the revenue to consider the claim as per Section 37. The disallowance under Section 14A was to be recomputed considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and cross objections. The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, both appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and cross objections. The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, both appeals were treated as dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the interest rate charged by the assessee, which included 300 basis points over SBI PLR, was reasonable and at arm's length. The variance in the interest rate did not exceed the permissible limit under Section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies, specifically Apitco Ltd., Cameo Corporate Services Ltd., Killick Agencies, Concept Communications Ltd., Just Dial Limited, and Marketing Consultants and Agencies Ltd., were not appropriate comparables for benchmarking the international transactions due to functional dissimilarity and significant turnover gaps. The Tribunal directed the deletion of these comparables.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Senior Departmental Representative agreed that the appeal was not maintainable and did not press it.

The Tribunal held that the interest rate charged by the assessee, which included 300 basis points over SBI PLR, was reasonable and at arm's length. The variance in the interest rate did not exceed the permissible limit under Section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act and a Form No. 3 has been issued. Both parties concurred with this submission.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act, as evidenced by the issuance of Form No. 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed, subject to a condition. If the dispute is not resolved under the Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's concession. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement under the scheme failed for technical reasons.

The tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue agreed to treat the appeal as withdrawn due to the VSVS settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, becoming infructuous.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the deductibility of 'Education Cess' and directed the revenue to consider the claim as per Section 37. The disallowance under Section 14A was to be recomputed considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

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

The Tribunal held that the interest rate charged by the assessee, which included 300 basis points over SBI PLR, was reasonable and at arm's length. The variance in the interest rate did not exceed the permissible limit under Section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act.

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 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.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court judgment, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the case.

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