ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that payments for accessing a database are not royalty income as they do not involve the use of or the right to use a copyright. The assessee only grants limited access to the product, not the underlying copyright.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to file the appeal electronically and then decide on merits. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's order, remitting the issue of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the AO for re-computation. However, the grounds of appeal regarding disallowance on account of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation at the higher rate of 60% on oil rigs. The decision relied on the Delhi High Court ruling in CIT vs. HLS India Ltd., which allowed similar claims for concerns providing oil rigs on lease.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the performance guarantee commission was taxable in Singapore under its tax laws, even without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in Singapore. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for foreign tax credit in India.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the facts for the current assessment year were not adequately examined, particularly regarding the nature of deposits and whether they related to the textile business. Due to the lack of proper examination by the lower authorities, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the AO did not propose any variation in the income returned by the assessee in the draft assessment order, the assessment order was barred by limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal did not delve into the other merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's entire income was exempt under Section 10(26AAB) and there was no business income, its belief that an audit was not required was bona fide. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not justified.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the expatriate payment adjustment, following a consistent view in the assessee's own case. It also allowed the claim for written-off security deposits as a business expenditure, finding them to be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on incorrect and wrong facts, without independent application of mind by the AO, and on borrowed satisfaction. The approval by the Joint Commissioner was also found to be mechanical. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PE issue needed to be decided based on the facts of the current assessment years, not solely on past years, and that the DRP failed to address specific objections. The software royalty issue was decided in favor of the assessee following a Supreme Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the successor CIT(A) wrongly rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee without examining it on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal before the CIT(A) was maintainable. However, it ruled that the assessee was not entitled to interest on interest, as the previous ITAT order directing the grant of interest did not include such a direction, and Section 244A does not provide for it.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal without going into the merits of the case. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's entire income was exempt under Section 10(26AAB) and there was no business income, its belief that an audit was not required was bona fide. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the PE issue needed to be decided based on the facts of the current assessment years, not solely on past years, and that the DRP failed to address specific objections. The software royalty issue was decided in favor of the assessee following a Supreme Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PE issue needed to be decided based on the facts of the current assessment years, not solely on past years, and that the DRP failed to address specific objections. The software royalty issue was decided in favor of the assessee following a Supreme Court ruling.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw all appeals as the issues had become academic. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw all appeals as the issues had become academic. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that for banking institutions, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, not investments, and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. It also held that software expenses incurred by the bank for streamlining its functions are revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that for banking institutions, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, not investments, and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. It also held that software expenses incurred by the bank for streamlining its functions are revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that for banking institutions, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, not investments, and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. It also held that software expenses incurred by the bank for streamlining its functions are revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that for banking institutions, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, not investments, and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. It also held that software expenses incurred by the bank for streamlining its functions are revenue expenditure.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw all appeals as the issues had become academic. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that for banking institutions, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, not investments, and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. It also held that software expenses incurred by the bank for streamlining its functions are revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that for banking institutions, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, not investments, and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. It also held that software expenses incurred by the bank for streamlining its functions are revenue expenditure.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw all appeals as the issues had become academic. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not in accordance with law because the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Shri S.K. Gupta, whose statement was the basis for the addition. The documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was not rebutted by the AO.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw all appeals as the issues had become academic. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw all appeals as the issues had become academic. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, acknowledging a mistake in dismissing the appeal based on low tax effect. However, upon re-examination, the Tribunal found that the revised CBDT circular of 2019, with a higher monetary limit, applied to pending appeals, rendering the Revenue's appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that for banking institutions, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, not investments, and income therefrom is business income, thus Section 14A is not attracted. It also held that software expenses incurred by the bank for streamlining its functions are revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s enhancement of GP based on comparable cases from different years, locations, and business scales was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided supporting documents and cross-verified creditors.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The dismissal was conditional, allowing for restoration if the dispute is not settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by previous orders of the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court in the assessee's own case. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material when the assessment is unabated. Since no such material was found, the estimated additions for education expenses and rental income were deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be sustained on the disallowance of depreciation as it was deleted in quantum proceedings. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal found no evidence of inaccurate particulars or concealed income, thus no penalty is leviable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was granted with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled as per the scheme.

The ITAT held that since the corresponding quantum additions, in respect of which the penalty was levied, had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty had no basis. Therefore, the appeal against the deletion of penalty was dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to appear before the lower authorities and the grounds raised regarding principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and approach the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

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 held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not meet the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The Revenue's counsel could not provide any exceptions to this rule.

The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated against a deceased person are null and void, following the Delhi High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also noted a lack of reasonable opportunity for the assessee, deeming it a fatal and incurable defect.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous and treated as withdrawn.