ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the non-resident company were inextricably connected with the extraction of mineral oil and thus fall under Section 44BB, not Section 115A. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable.

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 DDA's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the DDA opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The tribunal held that since the assessee's interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) exceeded its investments, no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted, following the Bombay High Court's decision in HDFC vs. DCIT. However, the disallowance of Rs. 50,565 towards indirect expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was upheld.

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

The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench and High Court orders for previous assessment years, which had decided the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

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 restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed a certificate to that effect. Both parties agreed to withdraw their respective filings.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had not earned any exempt income. The decision was based on jurisdictional High Court and Apex Court rulings.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

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

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

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 restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

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

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's working for suo motu disallowance. A mechanical disallowance under Rule 8D without proper examination is not permissible. The AO is directed to examine the assessee's computation.

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 for assessment year 2013-14, the assessee was eligible to claim set-off of loss against income determined under Section 115BBE, as the amendment disallowing set-off was prospective. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

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 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 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 interest income should be assessed under the head 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession'. This decision was based on the principle of consistency and previous favorable rulings for the assessee.

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.

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the exclusion of interest income that was not attributable to earning exempt income. The interest on investments in overseas companies that did not yield exempt income was rightly excluded.

The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings against a non-existent entity are a jurisdictional defect and not a procedural irregularity. Therefore, the assessment orders passed in the name of the amalgamated company were quashed.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

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 restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.

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 noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and requested withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were therefore consigned to records and treated as dismissed.