ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the claim for depreciation and carry forward of deficit. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court judgments that permit depreciation for charitable institutions, even when capital expenditure was treated as application of income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C/153A can only be made if there are incriminating documents found during the search operation that relate to the assessment years in question. Since no such incriminating documents were found for the unabated assessment years, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition made under Section 68, as the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of all transactions. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C/153A can only be made if there are incriminating documents found during the search operation that relate to the assessment years in question. Since no such incriminating documents were found for the unabated assessment years, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition made under Section 68, as the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of all transactions. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on funds inextricably linked to the setting up of a power plant, especially when not surplus, is a capital receipt and should be set off against pre-operative expenses.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of director's remuneration was unsustainable due to lack of justification and acceptance in subsequent years. It also held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for short deduction of TDS if a lower deduction certificate was provided.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had ignored the assessee's contentions and evidence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

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 Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasons for rejection were factually incorrect and not in accordance with the Act. The property was not exploited for private use, and a newly formed trust can be registered even without prior activities if its objects are charitable.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr.CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective for not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Delhi High Court's judgment in Pr.CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the successful resolution under the IBC, which binds all stakeholders.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the successful resolution of the assessee under the IBC, which binds all stakeholders.

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 as it had become infructuous due to the revised assessment order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the successful resolution under the IBC, which binds all stakeholders.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Intra Group Services (IGS) was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding sales tax subsidy, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that it was a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Intra Group Services (IGS) was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding sales tax subsidy, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that it was a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Intra Group Services (IGS) was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding sales tax subsidy, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that it was a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Intra Group Services (IGS) was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding sales tax subsidy, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that it was a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the transactions as required under Section 68. The AO and CIT(A) had ignored crucial evidence, including client confirmations and statements recorded on oath.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Intra Group Services (IGS) was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding sales tax subsidy, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that it was a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Intra Group Services (IGS) was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding sales tax subsidy, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that it was a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the issue of Intra Group Services (IGS) was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding sales tax subsidy, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that it was a capital receipt.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSV Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by AAI to FAA did not fall under the 'make available' clause of the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Therefore, the payments could not be regarded as 'fees for included services' taxable in India.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach to computing the adjustment was erroneous, as it did not correctly apply the Profit Split Method (PSM) or analyze the relative contributions of the assessee and AE. The Tribunal also found that the 'Other Method' used by the DRP was incorrectly applied and was a distorted version of the Bright Line Method (BLT).

The Tribunal held that interest on PDCs paid outside books should be recomputed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of the extended period, and that reimbursement of expenses, not debited to the P&L account, does not warrant disallowance under Section 40A(3). Additions on account of seized material were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by AAI to FAA did not constitute 'fees for included services' as the 'make available' clause in the relevant tax treaty was not satisfied. The services provided were in the nature of technical cooperation and did not transfer technical knowledge or skills to AAI in a manner that would remain available to them perpetually.

The Tribunal held that for distribution/trading activities where no significant value addition occurs, the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method. It also ruled that an assessee is not precluded from changing the method if the initially chosen method does not result in a proper determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

The Tribunal held that interest on PDCs paid outside books should be recomputed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of the extended period, and that reimbursement of expenses, not debited to the P&L account, does not warrant disallowance under Section 40A(3). Additions on account of seized material were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that for distribution/trading activities where no significant value addition occurs, the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method. It also ruled that an assessee is not precluded from changing the method if the initially chosen method does not result in a proper determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

The Tribunal held that for distribution/trading activities where no significant value addition occurs, the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method. It also ruled that an assessee is not precluded from changing the method if the initially chosen method does not result in a proper determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on their merits after condoning the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 had been issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on their merits after condoning the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on their merits after condoning the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.