ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on surmises and conjectures, relying heavily on the statement of one individual which was contradicted by another individual's statement. No direct evidence of cash transactions was presented.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on surmises and conjectures, relying heavily on the statement of one individual which was contradicted by another individual's statement. No direct evidence of cash transactions was presented.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on surmises and conjectures, relying heavily on the statement of one individual which was contradicted by another individual's statement. No direct evidence of cash transactions was presented.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of Holtec Consulting Pvt. Ltd. because its abnormally high profit margin (72.45%) made it unsuitable for benchmarking. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted differences in the specific areas of engineering consultancy services provided by Holtec and the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO to decide afresh after obtaining the report of the Valuation Officer. The AO was directed to give the assessee a due opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Education Cess is an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, as it is a mandatory expenditure not of a capital or personal nature. The Tribunal also addressed various grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments.