ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) as there was no obligation to withhold tax. This was because the basis of attributing profit to the PE was notional and the assessee had already deducted tax on salary costs under Section 192.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders, upholding the addition of Rs. 25 Lakhs as unexplained credit. However, it directed verification of whether the money was received in the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the offshore services, including drawings and designs, were inextricably linked to the offshore supply of plant and equipment. Therefore, the receipts were to be characterized as business profits and not FTS, and were not taxable in India as they could not be attributed to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the offshore services, including drawings and designs, were inextricably linked to the offshore supply of plant and equipment. Therefore, the receipts were to be characterized as business profits and not FTS, and were not taxable in India as they could not be attributed to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the services provided were routine administrative, HR, marketing, and operational support, and did not involve making available technical knowledge or skills. Therefore, the receipts did not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4)(a) or 12(4)(b) of the DTAA.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and decided to remand the matters back to the AO for fresh examination and verification. The AO was directed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the offshore services, including drawings and designs, were inextricably linked to the supply of plant and equipment and constituted business profits. Since these services were rendered outside India and the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India had no role in their rendition, the income was not taxable in India as FTS or business profits attributable to the PE.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision for the assessment year 2017-18 on identical facts. It held that the income in question was not taxable in India, and therefore, the CIT's order under Section 263 was erroneous and prejudicial to the assessee's interests.

The Tribunal held that the offshore services, including drawings and designs, were inextricably linked to the offshore supply of plant and equipment. Therefore, the receipts were to be characterized as business profits and not FTS, and were not taxable in India as they could not be attributed to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities failed to provide cogent material to prove the assessee was a paper company and thus not entitled to treaty benefits. Since the assessee held a valid TRC and investments were made prior to a certain date, treaty benefits were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the offshore services, including drawings and designs, were inextricably linked to the offshore supply of plant and equipment. Therefore, the receipts were to be characterized as business profits and not FTS, and were not taxable in India as they could not be attributed to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the offshore services, including drawings and designs, were inextricably linked to the offshore supply of plant and equipment. Therefore, the receipts were to be characterized as business profits and not FTS, and were not taxable in India as they could not be attributed to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that the offshore services, including drawings and designs, were inextricably linked to the offshore supply of plant and equipment. Therefore, the receipts were to be characterized as business profits and not FTS, and were not taxable in India as they could not be attributed to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee followed the cash system of accounting and the interest income was not received in AY 2016-17, it could not be taxed in that year. The income was subsequently offered to tax in AY 2019-20 when it was actually received, thus deleting the addition to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) as there was no obligation to withhold tax. This was because the basis of attributing profit to the PE was notional and the assessee had already deducted tax on salary costs under Section 192.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) as there was no obligation to withhold tax. This was because the basis of attributing profit to the PE was notional and the assessee had already deducted tax on salary costs under Section 192.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) as there was no obligation to withhold tax. This was because the basis of attributing profit to the PE was notional and the assessee had already deducted tax on salary costs under Section 192.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) as there was no obligation to withhold tax. This was because the basis of attributing profit to the PE was notional and the assessee had already deducted tax on salary costs under Section 192.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) as there was no obligation to withhold tax. This was because the basis of attributing profit to the PE was notional and the assessee had already deducted tax on salary costs under Section 192.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1)/201(1A) as there was no obligation to withhold tax. This was because the basis of attributing profit to the PE was notional and the assessee had already deducted tax on salary costs under Section 192.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses, specifically the discount on shares, represent an ascertained liability and not a contingent one. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the management services provided were distinct from services related to the use of intellectual property and did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. Therefore, the fees were not taxable as FTS in India.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the three companies. It found that Accentia and Eclerx were engaged in KPO activities, which were functionally different from the assessee's BPO services. TCS E-Serve was also deemed dissimilar due to its focus on transaction processing and technology services, lack of segmental data, and the benefit of a strong brand.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271AAB, finding that the income was disclosed only after the search and would have otherwise escaped assessment. The assessee failed to controvert the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of testing charges was not FTS as the assessee merely acted as a medium without adding value. It also held that the sale of goods to Indian entities was on a principal-to-principal basis, with no fixed place of business or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, thus the income from such sales was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a DIN on the cancellation order renders it invalid and non-est. The circular mandating DIN is binding on tax authorities, and subsequent validation attempts or arguments of sub silentio do not cure the defect.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular mandating DIN is binding on tax authorities and non-compliance renders the assessment order invalid. The argument for subsequent validation was also rejected, and the assessment order was deemed non est.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly dealt with the factual objections raised by the AO regarding the basis of projected cash flows used for determining the FMV. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature of cash deposits. Since no adequate explanation was provided, it was inferred that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that if the order under Section 263 is set aside, the subsequent assessment order passed based on it does not survive. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on additional evidence without remanding the issue to the AO. The AO's order lacked detailed analysis of the expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on goodwill, directing the AO to allow the claim. Regarding additional depreciation, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for verification and allowance in light of previous orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and deemed to have never been issued, as it violated the mandatory requirements of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding the quoting of DIN. The absence of DIN renders the order void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. However, it was observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate if the assessee was given a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the assessee provided audited accounts, party-wise details, VAT returns, and bank statements, which were verified by the AO during remand proceedings. Similarly, the addition on account of cash credit was deleted as the parties confirmed the transactions during remand proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271AAB, finding that the income was disclosed only after the search and would have otherwise escaped assessment. The assessee failed to controvert the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271AAB, finding that the income was disclosed only after the search and would have otherwise escaped assessment. The assessee failed to controvert the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider whether the due date for deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI should be based on the month of salary disbursement or the calendar month.

The Tribunal restored the issue of penalty to the AO for decision after the quantum is decided, as the stock valuation addition was set aside for fresh consideration. The addition under Section 14A was deleted, rendering the penalty on that ground unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the District Valuation Officer's report, which used backward indexation based on the current market value of residential land, was acceptable. The CIT(A) erred in insisting on using agricultural land rates when the land was sold as residential.

The Tribunal held that the TPO and CIT(A) adopted an ad-hoc approach in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for capital goods without adhering to Rule 10B. It also noted the department's failure to counter the assessee's argument of consistency with past assessment years.

The Tribunal held that bill discounting charges are not in the nature of commission under Section 194H and that the assessee had duly obtained declarations from transporters for freight charges under Section 194C(6), exempting them from TDS. Therefore, the additions and interest levied were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO solely relied on information from the Excise Department, which was later struck down by the CESTAT. The Tribunal also noted that the AO incorrectly passed an order under Section 147/143(3) instead of a best judgment assessment under Section 144.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO solely relied on information from the Excise Department, which was later struck down by the CESTAT. The Tribunal also noted that the AO incorrectly passed an order under Section 147/143(3) instead of a best judgment assessment under Section 144.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit, considering the original date of filing the return. Consequently, the notice under Section 142(1) also collapsed, and the assessment was treated as a nullity.

The Tribunal found that remanding the matter to the CIT(A) would serve the interest of justice and cause no prejudice to the Revenue. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the appellant an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that remanding the matter to the CIT(A) would serve the interest of justice and cause no prejudice to the Revenue. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the appellant an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that assessments under section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal found no factual inaccuracy in the CIT(A)'s order and rejected the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 as the transaction was confirmed by the partners of the depositing firm and the payment was reflected in their bank statements. Therefore, the addition was unjustified.