ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal found it just and fair to remand the matter back to the AO for verification of TDS deduction on the entire rental income. The AO is to re-decide the issue after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be expected to prove cash flow from sales with mathematical precision and that the business was likely able to generate sufficient cash. It found the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance based on mere assumptions to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit for the balance amount was not justified. It directed the AO to allow the credit of the remaining TDS amount after verification.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of export promotion expenses, agreeing with the lower authorities that the expenditure was not demonstrably for the business of the assessee since the sponsored individual had not joined the company. The assessee failed to justify the claim.

The Tribunal held that the enhancement by the CIT(A) was void due to lack of a show cause notice and being on a protective basis. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's claim that Section 68 was not applicable to subscriptions received in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the seized document lacked evidentiary value as it was unsigned, undated, and unverified. Furthermore, the assessee's affidavit and a subsequent letter confirmed no payments were made as per the document, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

The tribunal held that employer's PF & ESI contributions remitted before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as deductions, and this needs verification by the AO. For employee's contributions, the issue was restored to the AO for deciding based on the methodology of calculating the due date for deposit.

The tribunal held that employer's PF & ESI contributions remitted before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as deductions, and this needs verification by the AO. For employee's contributions, the issue was restored to the AO for deciding based on the methodology of calculating the due date for deposit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was correct in allowing the credit for TDS. Once tax has been deducted and deposited, the deductee has a right to claim credit, even if the income is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that provisions for doubtful loans and advances are not provisions for meeting liabilities but are attributable to existing receivables. Therefore, they are not hit by Section 115JB(2) Explanation 1(c).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the on-money transaction was not proven, as the dates were inconsistent with the property purchase, and no corroborating evidence was provided by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the on-money transaction was not proven, as the dates were inconsistent with the property purchase, and no corroborating evidence was provided by the AO.

The Tribunal held that accrued interest income is to be computed as per Section 44 and the First Schedule, and Section 14A is not applicable for insurance businesses. Guest house repairing expenses were allowed based on previous consistent rulings. The issue of depreciation was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that accrued interest income is to be computed as per Section 44 and the First Schedule, and Section 14A is not applicable for insurance businesses. Guest house repairing expenses were allowed based on previous consistent rulings. The issue of depreciation was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed two appeals for the same cause of action. One of the appeals was treated as infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for accumulation was valid. It noted that the trust had consistently used general terms like "Development Activities" or "Charitable Activities" in past years, which were accepted. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions stating that accumulation for the general objects of the trust is permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in classifying a commercial property owned by the assessee as a residential property. Therefore, the assessee owned only one residential property, making them eligible for the Section 54F deduction.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have provided a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that there was no effective representation for the assessee before the lower authorities and set aside the impugned order. The assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that marketing and sales services, operations, and standardization services did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Singapore DTAA. Consequently, these amounts could not be treated as FTS. The issue of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the sale of shares should be taxed as LTCGs and STCGs as declared by the assessee, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The conversion of stock-in-trade to investment was permissible.

The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the sale of shares should be taxed as LTCGs and STCGs as declared by the assessee, following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The conversion of stock-in-trade to investment was permissible.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was correct in principle, the provision for development expenses attributable to sold inventory was indeed charged to the P&L account. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh scrutiny regarding the expenses charged to the P&L for sold inventory.

The Tribunal held that the total cash deposits to be considered were Rs. 18,78,000/-. It accepted the assessee's explanations for agricultural income, cash gift from a sister-in-law, and a portion of the advance from his brother. However, the explanation for the full advance against the plot sale was not fully substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the re-characterization of software sale receipts as FTS by the AO was unsustainable. It found no evidence of services rendered or the 'make available' condition being met under the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that marketing and sales services, operations, and standardization services did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Singapore DTAA. Consequently, these amounts could not be treated as FTS. The issue of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's plea, stating that an order passed without jurisdiction is non-est in the eyes of law. The delay in communication also raised concerns. Consequently, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that marketing and sales services, operations, and standardization services did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Singapore DTAA. Consequently, these amounts could not be treated as FTS. The issue of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's plea, stating that an order passed without jurisdiction is non-est in the eyes of law. The delay in communication also raised concerns. Consequently, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that marketing and sales services, operations, and standardization services did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Singapore DTAA. Consequently, these amounts could not be treated as FTS. The issue of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowed capital for the let-out property should be allowed as a deduction. It also held that notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be added to the annual letting value of the property.

The Tribunal held that the re-characterization of software sale receipts as FTS by the AO was unsustainable. It found no evidence of services rendered or the 'make available' condition being met under the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that marketing and sales services, operations, and standardization services did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Singapore DTAA. Consequently, these amounts could not be treated as FTS. The issue of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that subscription receipts from cloud services are not taxable as royalty income in India. This decision was based on precedents from the Delhi High Court and a coordinate bench of the ITAT, which held similar receipts as not constituting royalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C were barred by limitation for both assessment years. Consequently, all other issues raised on merits became academic and infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C were barred by limitation for both assessment years. Consequently, all other issues raised on merits became academic and infructuous.

The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order lacked adequate inquiry regarding the deemed export benefits. However, it found the CIT's direction to disallow the claim without hearing the assessee incorrect.

The Tribunal held that deposits made on the next working day after a Sunday due date for ESI/PF are allowable. However, regarding the addition of the firm's loss, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of findings by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that the salary expense disallowed in the previous year due to non-deduction of TDS should not be disallowed in the current year if taxes were subsequently deposited. The Tribunal also held that the input tax credit, though not claimed in the original return, was a genuine claim and directed its deletion from the addition.

The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees received by the assessee are not FTS/FIS under the Act or the India-US DTAA. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and that of a group company, the Tribunal ruled that these receipts constitute business income, which is not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.

The Tribunal held that the centralized services fees received by the assessee are not FTS/FIS under the Act or the India-US DTAA. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and that of a group company, the Tribunal ruled that these receipts constitute business income, which is not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from centralized services are not FTS/FIS under the Act or the India-US DTAA, but are business income. Since the assessee has no PE in India, this business income is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from centralized services are not FTS/FIS under the Act or the India-US DTAA, but are business income. Since the assessee has no PE in India, this business income is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from centralized services are not FTS/FIS under the Act or the India-US DTAA, but are business income. Since the assessee has no PE in India, this business income is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from centralized services are not FTS/FIS under the Act or the India-US DTAA, but rather business income. Since the assessee has no PE in India, this business income is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from centralized services are not FTS/FIS under the Act or the India-US DTAA, but rather business income. Since the assessee has no PE in India, this business income is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA is not leviable if the Assessing Officer does not specifically question the assessee about the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the statement recording under Section 132(4). Since this was not done, the assessee is entitled to immunity from penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) had allowed the admission of additional evidence and found that the increase in short-term borrowings was due to reclassification, and the increase in other current liabilities was explained by VAT payable, TDS payable, and advances.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It held that since the collaboration agreement was between two companies and the assessee signed in a representative capacity, any investigation regarding payments should have been directed towards those companies, not the individual assessee.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider the additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.