ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be well-reasoned. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion of the disallowance of expenses and the direction regarding the treatment of income as business income.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's ad-hoc addition, treating the price penetration adjustment as income, was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's margins were at arm's length even without the adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the conditional amount of Rs. 41,00,000 was not receivable by the assessee if the conditions were not met. The purchaser's letter and its accounting treatment as remission of liability supported the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable as the gift was made before its effective date. It also noted that Section 50C was not relevant as there was no understatement of consideration. The Tribunal found that the property was transferred to the assessee by his father and subsequently gifted to his sister.

The Tribunal held that the period mentioned in the R&D facility approval is not relevant and relates back to the beginning of the financial year in which the application was filed. The CIT(A)'s reliance on High Court judgments was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable explanations with evidence for all allegations, which the Revenue could not controvert. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions under section 12AA(3) were not violated and the CIT(E) was not justified in cancelling the registration.

The Tribunal held that the service tax on rent should be allowed as it takes the character of rent itself. For the rent paid to Ms. Manju Gosai, the Tribunal found that while oral tenancy is permissible, the assessee failed to prove it and the business use of the premises.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete most of the additions and disallowances made by the AO. It found that ad-hoc disallowances without adverse material were unsustainable and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for its claims, including the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Mindtree Ltd.'s comparability to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overlooked the assessee's submissions regarding restructuring. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions on several other comparables challenged by the Revenue.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Mindtree Ltd.'s comparability to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overlooked the assessee's submissions regarding restructuring. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions on several other comparables challenged by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed paid the requisite fees for filing the appeal, making the CIT(A)'s observation erroneous. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on FDRs placed with banks for business purposes is eligible for deduction under Section 10B. Similarly, subsidy and insurance claims were also held to be part of business profits eligible for Section 10B deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income during the assessment proceedings. The penalty order was found to be defective for not specifying the exact charge and for levying penalty on a different limb than what was initiated.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt, upholding the assessee's revised return and the Delhi High Court's decision in its own case. It also ruled that the foreign commission payments were not fees for technical services and therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54F is available even if the investment in the new property is made by family members, as long as the property is purchased in the assessee's name. Regarding the surrendered income, the Tribunal found that the surrender was not voluntary and lacked credible evidence, especially considering the assessee was hospitalized and the son was under medication during the survey.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the original proceedings under Section 263 were quashed, the consequential order of the CIT(A) did not survive. Therefore, the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence like PAN, bank statements, and financial statements of the creditors. The Tribunal found that the transactions were routed through banking channels, interest was paid after TDS deduction, and the loan was repaid, thus establishing the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable due to the omnibus penalty notice which failed to specify the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the primary dispute was on the nature of expenses (revenue vs. capital), with full disclosures made, and the disallowance was not ex-facie bogus.

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

The Tribunal held that the payments in question were towards trade liabilities arising from material purchases and were made through banking channels. Therefore, they could not be considered unexplained expenditure. The addition and subsequent penalty were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the payments in question were towards trade liabilities arising from material purchases and were made through banking channels. Therefore, they could not be considered unexplained expenditure. The addition and subsequent penalty were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on unsecured loans, following a Gujarat High Court judgment where repayment before scrutiny and creditor's identity/creditworthiness were established. For foreign travel expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 30% of the total claim, finding the 50% disallowance excessive.

The Tribunal held that the investment in the LLC was substantiated by bank statements showing a clear trail of funds from India to the LLC, and thus not unexplained. Similarly, investments in securities made in prior years were not taxable in the current year. Peak balances in bank accounts were also explained.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee were not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as there was no human intervention and the services did not 'make available' technical knowledge. The Tribunal further held that the income was in the nature of business profits and not taxable in India as the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee were not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as there was no human intervention and the services did not 'make available' technical knowledge. The Tribunal further held that the income was in the nature of business profits and not taxable in India as the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial in nature and did not fall within the definition of FTS under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The Tribunal also noted that the 'make available' condition for FTS was not satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash payments for jewellery and the cash found through bank withdrawals and cash flow statements. The authorities below had ignored this evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, being illiterate and claiming to be misguided by professionals, was not properly represented. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, including the claim for exemption under Section 54F.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive notices due to the Covid period and requested an opportunity to present their case. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal noted that under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a settlement certificate. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of unexplained credits. It reduced the commission income addition to 0.5% and directed recalculation. Additions related to service charges were upheld due to lack of substantiation. Additions on account of cash and jewellery were partly allowed based on family member holdings and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54 for the basement floor property, reversing the lower authorities' decision. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments interpreting 'a residential house' to include multiple properties.

The Tribunal held that the management support services provided by the assessee do not fall under the definition of FTS as per Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case and group company cases.

The Tribunal heard the submissions and, in view of the assessee's request, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as they were not effectively connected to the PE. The Tribunal also upheld the taxation of interest on income tax refund as business profits effectively connected to the PE.

The assessee's counsel, with the assessee's instructions, stated that they did not wish to pursue the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as they were not effectively connected to the PE. The Tribunal also upheld the taxation of interest on income tax refund as business profits effectively connected to the PE.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as they were not effectively connected to the PE. The Tribunal also upheld the taxation of interest on income tax refund as business profits effectively connected to the PE.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as they were not effectively connected to the PE. The Tribunal also upheld the taxation of interest on income tax refund as business profits effectively connected to the PE.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were taxable in India as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, as they were not effectively connected to the PE. The Tribunal also upheld the taxation of interest on income tax refund as business profits effectively connected to the PE.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the issues were identical to those pending before the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court's decision would be binding. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in terms of the declaration.