ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals) that the surplus amounts in the regulatory accounts were not income of the assessee. The assessee was merely overseeing collections, and the funds were diverted at source, preventing the assessee from using them.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paying the due taxes.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for trade creditors, noting that the assessee had provided supporting documents and payments were made through banking channels. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for marketing expenses, agreeing that no TDS was required as Facebook Ireland Inc. had no PE in India.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide documents to substantiate its claim of being substantially financed by the Government.

The Tribunal held that since the enhanced income on which the penalty was levied was subsequently determined to be Nil by the AO, the penalty on such enhancement does not survive and should be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for published research reports and customized research advisory services from third parties is not taxable as royalty under the India-USA DTAA. It also held that interest under sections 234B and 234C is not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that disallowances on account of car insurance and telephone expenses were not justified and deleted them. The issue of electricity expenses was remanded to the AO for fresh determination. The disallowance of driver's salary was partly allowed, and the disallowance of depreciation was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a fair hearing and an opportunity to represent their case, as there was no effective representation and additional evidence was not considered.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies (Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Infosys Limited, Mindtree Ltd., and Thirdware Solution Ltd.) from the TPO's analysis due to functional dissimilarity and other reasons. It also directed the deletion of the adjustment on account of outstanding receivables overdue from AEs, following its own prior decision.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for published research reports and customized research advisory services from third parties is not taxable as royalty under the India-USA DTAA. It also held that interest under sections 234B and 234C is not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) can be made. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied was subsequently deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty does not survive. Therefore, the penalty is directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income, representing a difference in net sales from two sets of books, constituted business income and not deemed income under Section 68. Consequently, the assessee was allowed to set off this business income against business losses.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, had been set aside to the AO's file. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also restored to the AO to be decided afresh after the assessment is decided.

The Tribunal held that since the enhanced income on which the penalty was levied was subsequently determined to be Nil by the AO, the penalty on such enhancement does not survive and should be deleted.

The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments, held that the TPO's jurisdiction is to determine the arm's length price (ALP) and not to question the commercial expediency or benefit of services. The matter was remitted back to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in excluding Infosys BPO Limited from the list of comparables used for transfer pricing adjustment. This decision was based on the significant brand value and different business model of Infosys BPO Limited compared to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file the applications electronically. The CIT (Exemption) was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to ESI/PF are deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). Amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and verified the Section 10A deduction claim. The proviso to Section 92C(4) was not applicable as the deduction was not allowed against enhanced assessed income. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided independent findings for profit attribution to the assessee's PO, instead relying solely on the assessment order of another group entity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction was not recorded, and the penalty notice did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal found that its previous order in a related appeal for the same assessment year had already addressed the grounds raised by the Revenue. Therefore, the present appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided independent findings for profit attribution to the assessee's PO, instead relying solely on the assessment order of another group entity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide evidence or comparable cases to prove the commission payments were excessive or unreasonable. Since the recipients were taxpayers, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have recorded satisfaction regarding interest expenditure related to exempt income. Since the assessee claimed no such expenditure was incurred, and the AO did not make a suo-moto disallowance, the addition made by invoking Section 14A was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in excluding Infosys BPO Limited from the list of comparables used for transfer pricing adjustment. This decision was based on the significant brand value and different business model of Infosys BPO Limited compared to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for published research reports and customized research advisory services from third parties is not taxable as royalty under the India-USA DTAA. It also held that interest under sections 234B and 234C is not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the IT Act is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit or outstanding payables. The addition on account of increased sundry creditors was found unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the AO's reasons were vague, unsubstantiated, and based on 'borrowed satisfaction' without independent application of mind or corroborative material. The AO relied solely on AIR information without further inquiry.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Revenue's representative, acknowledging that the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowances, finding that the Assessing Officer's actions were ad-hoc or based on insufficient grounds. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case for identical issues.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The recent amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va). The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that since the deposits were made before the filing of the return of income, the addition was not justified. The issue is well settled in favour of the assessee by various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) can be made. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 148 as the information received was based on suspicion and lacked independent inquiry. The addition under Section 68 was also found unsustainable due to double addition.

The Tribunal held that the payment was made for labour charges and material at various project sites due to commercial expediency and the nature of the business. Therefore, the assessee had neither filed inaccurate particulars nor concealed income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the bills submitted. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.