ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered whether an addition could be made under Section 143(1). It was of the view that the issue required verification by the AO to determine if the information was provided and if the addition was due to a technical glitch.

The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the evidence gathered at their back. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the original assessment was limited in scope, and the Assessing Officer could not have rectified an issue not covered by the limited scrutiny. Furthermore, the allowability of prior period expenses requires factual examination and is outside the scope of Section 154.

The Tribunal held that an Assessing Officer, once having passed an assessment order, becomes functus officio and lacks the power to cancel, recall, withdraw, or declare it null and void. The AO cannot substitute one assessment order with another without following statutory provisions like reopening or rectification.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the method of income computation should not be disturbed without compelling justification. The CIT(A)'s action was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the first appellate order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow a due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions for identical issues in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the gains were attributable to contract work and supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a reseller of copyrighted articles and had not transferred any right to use copyright, thus the software sale receipts were not royalty. It also upheld the deletion of FTS additions as they were not ancillary to royalty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It ruled that commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders is not taxable in India and thus not subject to TDS. The Tribunal also found the increase in preservation charges justified based on business expediency.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a reseller of copyrighted articles and had not transferred any right to use copyright, thus the software sale receipts were not royalty. It also upheld the deletion of FTS additions as they were not ancillary to royalty.

The Tribunal found that there was a discrepancy regarding whether the interest income was included in the assessee's books of account. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a reseller of copyrighted articles and had not transferred any right to use copyright, thus the software sale receipts were not royalty. It also upheld the deletion of FTS additions as they were not ancillary to royalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed the order without considering the assessee's submissions filed just before the order date. The assessee had also applied for a reissued Memorandum of Association due to pending amendments.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not examined the return filed by the assessee before issuing the notice for re-opening. Therefore, the reasons recorded were based on incorrect facts, making the notice void ab initio and the subsequent assessment legally invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and making an addition based on ambiguous findings. The issue was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a reseller of copyrighted articles and had not transferred any right to use copyright, thus the software sale receipts were not royalty. It also upheld the deletion of FTS additions as they were not ancillary to royalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the source of cash deposits, which were explained as fees received by a trust run by the assessee. The PCIT was therefore not validly empowered to invoke Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the existence of a PE must be determined on a year-to-year basis based on specific facts. Since the departmental authorities failed to controvert the assessees' evidence of changed circumstances, the assessees did not have a PE in India for the assessment years in dispute.

The Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that employers must deposit employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date to avail deduction. Amounts retained and not deposited by the due date are deemed income and not deductible.

The Tribunal held that the existence of a PE must be determined on a year-to-year basis based on specific facts. Since the departmental authorities failed to controvert the assessees' evidence of changed circumstances, the assessees did not have a PE in India for the assessment years in dispute.

The Tribunal held that the existence of a PE must be determined on a year-to-year basis based on specific facts. Since the departmental authorities failed to controvert the assessees' evidence of changed circumstances, the assessees did not have a PE in India for the assessment years in dispute.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, held that the disallowance of belated employees' contribution to PF/ESIC is permissible under Section 143(1). However, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination regarding the due date for deposit based on the actual disbursement of salary.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to re-examine the issue of granting registration. The assessee was directed to comply promptly with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the existence of a PE must be determined on a year-to-year basis, and the departmental authorities failed to consider the changed facts and evidence presented by the assessees. Therefore, the assessees did not have a PE in India for the assessment years in dispute.

The Tribunal held that the receipts constituted business profits and were not taxable in India as the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) there. The AO's classification of the income as 'other income' under the India-US DTAA was deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity by the lower authorities and set aside the impugned order to uphold the principles of natural justice. The assessment was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty levied with reference to those additions no longer survived. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 as the consideration for land was invested in a new residential property. The restriction on accepting claims not made in the return does not apply to higher appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a technical breach and should be ignored as the form was filed before the processing of the return. The Tribunal found that Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC for delayed filing and that such conditions are directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide convincing evidence to prove the source of the remaining cash. Affidavits and confirmations from family members were considered self-serving.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are in the nature of business profits and not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS). The Tribunal followed previous decisions which held that access to a copyrighted database constitutes use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself, and lacks the 'make available' clause requirement for FTS under the treaty.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order. As the assessment orders were annulled, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions and disallowances made by the AO.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order. As the assessment orders were annulled, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions and disallowances made by the AO.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional AO has the jurisdiction to entertain rectification applications under Section 154. However, since multiple intimations were issued, separate rectification applications should have been filed for each. The AO was directed to dispose of these applications on merit.

The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in denying additional depreciation without proper verification, especially given the large capacity of the solar plant. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of whether the office building is part of the factory premises and if the generated electricity is used for the factory.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to consider reasonable cause for non-compliance. Since the AO did not assign reasons for rejecting the assessee's contention of not receiving notices, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order. As the assessment orders were annulled, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions and disallowances made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation report, based on the DCF method as per Rule 11UA, was acceptable. The AO erred in discarding the valuation and making additions, especially given the mathematical errors found in the AO's own NAV method calculation. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Cinestaan Entertainment was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the deposit of Rs. 2.25 crores was a transfer from the assessee's grandfather's bank account, not an unexplained cash deposit. It also found that the remaining Rs. 65 lakhs was explained by withdrawals made by the assessee and his wife from their respective bank accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation report, based on the DCF method as per Rule 11UA, was acceptable. The AO erred in discarding the valuation and making additions, especially given the mathematical errors found in the AO's own NAV method calculation. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Cinestaan Entertainment was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation report, based on the DCF method as per Rule 11UA, was acceptable. The AO erred in discarding the valuation and making additions, especially given the mathematical errors found in the AO's own NAV method calculation. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Cinestaan Entertainment was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation report, based on the DCF method as per Rule 11UA, was acceptable. The AO erred in discarding the valuation and making additions, especially given the mathematical errors found in the AO's own NAV method calculation. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Cinestaan Entertainment was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had deducted TDS, provided confirmations from agents, and the agents were identifiable. Non-compliance by independent agents should not be detrimental to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without verifying the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the creditors and debtors. The Tribunal found no basis for the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the assessee was an entry provider.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order. As the assessment orders were annulled, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the additions and disallowances made by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that if the AO doubted the genuineness of the funds in the hands of the partners, the addition should have been made in the partners' individual hands, not in the hands of the firm. The firm's onus is discharged once the source of funds (partners) is established.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence for the loans, including repayment with interest and TDS, and that the advance was also returned. Therefore, the additions made under Section 68 were not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of protective additions on account of unexplained cash credits, following a previous ruling. However, it allowed the revenue's appeal regarding commission income, directing additions at a net rate of 0.47% of turnover.