ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that the receipts from providing telecommunication services through satellite are not royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case and that of Inmarsat Global Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and DRP failed to provide substantive evidence to prove the assessee was a conduit company or engaged in impermissible tax avoidance. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to treaty benefits.

The Tribunal held that the denial of 12A benefits due to a clerical error in the ITR was incorrect. It found that the assessee was not making a fresh claim but seeking rectification of an inadvertent mistake, which was evident from the entire record.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from providing telecommunication services through satellite are not royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case and that of Inmarsat Global Ltd.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure principles of natural justice by allowing both parties an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue of late deposit of employees' contribution towards ESI & PF has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the revenue. The Supreme Court held that for deduction, such amounts must be deposited on or before the due date.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure principles of natural justice by allowing both parties an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat rental income as 'income from house property' and allow deductions under Section 24(a). It also confirmed the deletion of disallowance for rental expenses on the grounds that the property was used for business.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following various High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that all rights were transferred to the developer was untenable as the assessee remained the legal and beneficial owner. The AO's addition on account of deemed profit on transfer of WIP was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, including repayment through banking channels. Therefore, the addition and disallowance were unjustified.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the AO erred by not passing a speaking order for the objections raised. The matter was remitted back to the AO to dispose of the objections with a speaking order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the significant delay in filing the appeal, as the assessee failed to provide a proper reasonable cause and supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the advocate fees for acquiring shares in a company engaged in the same business are revenue expenditure, as it is for the furtherance of existing business. The advertisement and publicity expenses were also allowed as they were supported by evidence of business purpose and payments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition made by the AO. The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for the share capital and premium received.

The Tribunal held that the cut-off date mentioned in the DSIR approval letter is irrelevant. Once the R&D facility is approved, the entire expenditure incurred during the relevant financial year is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB).

The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material was found from a third party's premises, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 153A. Furthermore, if the income was already taxed in the hands of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd., it could not be taxed again in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as per legal requirements. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to its defective nature.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that upfront loan fees are allowable as revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence if the loan is for business purposes. It also held that commission paid to a foreign agent for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, thus no TDS is required and no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that the sale of shares at a negotiated price was genuine, especially since the company was incurring losses and the assessee had found a buyer with difficulty. The Tribunal found no evidence to disprove the transaction's genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable as income from other sources. They found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which followed jurisdictional High Court precedents and the provisions of the Act.

The Tribunal held that upfront loan fees are allowable as revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence if the loan is for business purposes. It also held that commission paid to a foreign agent for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, thus no TDS is required and no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the labour charges, finding the payment genuine and duly supported by evidence. However, it dismissed the appeal concerning PF & ESI dues, following the Supreme Court's ruling that such contributions must be deposited by the statutory due date for deductibility.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for business promotion, Diwali, and miscellaneous expenses. The assessee failed to provide contrary evidence to justify the expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide contrary evidence to justify the cash deposits or refute the findings regarding accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were based on documents seized from premises belonging to other entities and that the seized documents were dated from 01.01.2012 onwards. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the labour charges, finding the payment genuine and duly supported by evidence. However, it dismissed the appeal concerning PF & ESI dues, following the Supreme Court's ruling that such contributions must be deposited by the statutory due date for deductibility.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO's assessment was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as no cogent evidence was provided to counter the PCIT's findings.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal held that payments for web hosting services do not constitute royalty or FTS, and therefore, are not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, the assessee was not required to withhold tax on these payments.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were based on documents seized from premises belonging to other entities and that the seized documents were dated from 01.01.2012 onwards. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred for conducting due diligence for the acquisition of a company is allowable as revenue expenditure, following precedents from the Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts. The disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was therefore set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). The assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including source of source, to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were based on documents seized from premises belonging to other entities and that the seized documents were dated from 01.01.2012 onwards. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the interest-free advances, thus no disallowance of interest was warranted. The additional ground regarding set-off of brought forward losses was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had exported goods manufactured from the purchases, the purchases could not be entirely bogus. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that a portion of the purchases might contain a profit element. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on these purchases at 12.5%.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated without complying with statutory conditions and were based on a change of opinion. The Tribunal also found that the additions made on account of purchases and commission expenses were not justified and lacked proper basis.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee maintains records of donors' identities and addresses, donations cannot be considered anonymous under Section 115BBC. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with copies of the seized material and statements relied upon, nor did the satisfaction note clearly link the alleged incriminating material to the assessment years. Consequently, the notice under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with copies of the seized material and statements relied upon, nor did the satisfaction note clearly link the alleged incriminating material to the assessment years. Consequently, the notice under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with copies of the seized material and statements relied upon, nor did the satisfaction note clearly link the alleged incriminating material to the assessment years. Consequently, the notice under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders were deemed invalid.