ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the Rs. 50 lacs limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that an order passed by the TPO on a non-existing entity, which has already been amalgamated, is void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's margin was higher than the arm's length margin when current year data of comparables was considered.

The Tribunal found significant infirmities in the TPO's computation of margins, selection of comparables, and determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). Consequently, the entire issue was set aside and remanded back to the TPO for a fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B was untenable due to non-compliance with approval requirements. However, it allowed the assessee to pursue an alternative claim for deduction under Section 10A.

The Tribunal held that profits from share valuation should be treated as speculative profit eligible for set off against carried forward losses. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.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 the omission of Section 92BA(1) rendered the proceedings and assessment order invalid, as if the section never existed. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the AO and the reference to the TPO were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to properly give effect to the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) also erred in mechanically sustaining the AO's finding without proper reasoning. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute involved in the appeal had been settled by the assessee under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to properly give effect to the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) also erred in mechanically sustaining the AO's finding without proper reasoning. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned and that no disallowance could be made when the dividend income was not earned on the company's investments. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

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 additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made without incriminating material and that the penalty notices were invalid. Consequently, the additions and penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

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 the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153A was without legal basis as no incriminating material was found for the assessment years in question. Consequently, the additions and penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek reinstitution of the appeal if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was recovered for the relevant assessment years. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled.