ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

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 agreed with the assessee's representative and the Revenue's no-objection to restore the issues back to the AO. The AO was directed to pass fresh orders after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

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

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 request.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, 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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

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 assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request to restore the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration. Both parties consented to this approach, and the Tribunal clarified it was not opining on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

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 held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

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

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for the supply of GSM systems. It also held that software payments were business income and not royalty, following Supreme Court judgments.

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 of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to circular transactions, finding that the profit disclosed by the assessee was sufficient. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had demonstrated manufacturing activities and excise compliance.

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

The Tribunal recalled its earlier dismissal orders and restored the appeals for hearing. However, upon being informed that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn and dismissed them.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier dismissal orders and restored the appeals for hearing. However, upon being informed that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn and dismissed them.

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

The Tribunal recalled its earlier dismissal orders and restored the appeals for hearing. However, upon being informed that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn and dismissed them.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of other expenses and tour & travel expenses back to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to the assessee. Regarding interest expenses, it was deleted as the unsecured loan addition was already deleted. For depreciation, the AO was directed to verify if there were additions to fixed assets, and if not, no disallowance on WDV at the beginning of the year should be made.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50 lacs should not be filed. As the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to circular transactions, finding that the profit disclosed by the assessee was sufficient. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had demonstrated manufacturing activities and excise compliance.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeal. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to circular transactions, finding that the profit disclosed by the assessee was sufficient. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had demonstrated manufacturing activities and excise compliance.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to circular transactions, finding that the profit disclosed by the assessee was sufficient. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had demonstrated manufacturing activities and excise compliance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to circular transactions, finding that the profit disclosed by the assessee was sufficient. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had demonstrated manufacturing activities and excise compliance.