ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2023

HCL TECHNOLOGIES PHILIPPINES INC.,NEW DELHI vs ACIT,CIRCLE-INT. TAX 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 543/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL TECHNOLOGIES FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs ACIT,CIRCLE-INT. TAX 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 544/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL TECHNOLOGIES GERMANY GMBH,GERMANY vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 559/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL POLAND SP ZOO,POLAND vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 560/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL CANADA INC.,CANADA vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 561/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM LLC,MUMBAI vs ADIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5627/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the activities performed by the Indian entity were primarily for the delivery of services. It also ruled that the Transactional Net Margin Method was appropriate for determining arm's length price and that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as no advance tax was payable.

M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM LLC,MUMBAI vs ADIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5628/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the activities performed by the Indian entity were primarily for the delivery of services. It also ruled that the Transactional Net Margin Method was appropriate for determining arm's length price and that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as no advance tax was payable.

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MAYLASIA SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 563/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD,AUSTRALIA vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 564/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BV,NETHERLANDS vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 565/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL TECHNOLOGIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 567/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL HONGKONG SAR LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 593/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL MEXICO S. DE R L,MEXICO vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 594/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BELGIUM BVBA,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 595/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

HCL TECHNOLOGIES ITALY S.P.A,ITALY vs ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 596/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee entities from HCL Technologies Ltd. were not taxable in India as they did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.

SUNIL GHORAWAT,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 6382/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of short-term capital loss was not sustainable. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence of purchase and sale through banking channels and demat accounts. The AO's inquiry was found to be deficient, and the information from the Investigation Wing did not directly implicate the assessee or his broker.

RAHUL NAGPAL,GURGAON vs ITO WARD - 3(4), GURGAON

ITA 69/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition without properly considering withdrawals and the fact that the account was jointly held. The addition was directed to be deleted.

ASHOK AGGARWAL,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3040/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent their case before the first appellate authority in the interest of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

SAVANNAH SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

ITA 1471/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed before the due date, and Form 3CL was obtained shortly thereafter. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to consider the submitted Form 3CL and provide relief if it was in order.

ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs MICHELIN GLOBAL MOBILITY SA, SWITZERLAND

ITA 1748/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the cost-to-cost reimbursements for social security, insurance, and relocation expenses were in the nature of reimbursements and not FTS. However, the administrative fee was accepted as taxable FTS, following the assessee's admission.

ITO, WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI vs ADCEPTION INFOTECH P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 5217/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants and that the disallowed expenses were incurred for business purposes.

PARVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR,FARIDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

ITA 2659/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding factual errors in the assessment. Consequently, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after rectifying the errors and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

AGGRADEEP REALTORS P.LTD,GURGAON vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1011/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid and deemed to have never been issued due to the absence of a DIN, as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The CIT(A) was directed to reframe the order after providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.

SEED EDU CORP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

ITA 2376/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed without jurisdiction. The AO and CIT(A) erred in passing orders despite not having jurisdiction over the assessee.

ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs MICHELIN ROH CO. LTD., THAILAND

ITA 1746/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the India-Thailand DTAA lacks a specific FTS clause, the income from engineering services should be treated as business income under Article 7. As the assessee has no PE in India, this business income is not taxable in India.

RAJ KUMAR ARORA,FARIDABAD vs DCIT CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

ITA 1747/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid as it was passed without a DIN number, rendering it non-compliant with CBDT circulars. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

AMIT GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

ITA 1015/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid as it did not bear the mandatory DIN number as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Therefore, the order was deemed to have never been issued.

DCIT CENTRAL CICLE-14, NEW DELHI vs RAMA ALLIED PRODUCTS MARKETING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1680/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid as it was passed without a DIN, violating the mandatory CBDT Circular. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

DCIT CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI vs SUPER CITY DEVEOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 19/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted additions without proper verification, especially when the AO's additions were based on non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

LUCKNOW SITAPUR EXPRESSWAYS LIMITED,DELHI vs JCIT, RANGE -75 TDS, DELHI

ITA 2987/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer, as there was no preceding order under section 201(1)/201(1A) and the AO failed to specify the default or the relevant statutory obligation. The penalty was also levied after an inordinate delay.

ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs MICHELIN ROH CO. LTD., THAILAND

ITA 1747/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the India-Thailand DTAA lacks a specific FTS clause, the income from engineering services should be treated as business income under Article 7. As the assessee has no PE in India, this business income is not taxable in India.

HIMANSHU SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, NEW DELHI

ITA 2468/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee subsequently complied with the notice and questionnaire, and the assessment was completed accepting the returned income, the penalty for non-compliance was not justified.

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 1258/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted the Department's request to merge the appeals and decided to dismiss the current appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to raise the additional ground in accordance with law.

SUPER CONNECTIONS INDIA (P) LTD.,DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

ITA 7666/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. from the assessee were found to be genuine in separate proceedings, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee was not sustainable. Consequently, the addition of alleged commission/brokerage was also deleted.

AMARJEET SING ANEJA,NEW DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2252/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a personal hearing, which is mandatory under Rule 12(3) of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SUPER CONNECTIONS INDIA (P) LTD.,DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

ITA 7665/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. from the assessee were found to be genuine in separate proceedings, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee was not sustainable. Consequently, the addition of alleged commission/brokerage was also deleted.

KRISHNA THEOPHILUS,NOIDA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI

ITA 1052/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2008-09Withdrawn

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

PRIYAMDA MEDIA & INFOTAINMENT P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 7489/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted additions related to unconfirmed sundry payables and ad-hoc disallowance of expenses. It restricted the disallowance for non-deposit of TDS to 30% of the amount. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted due to vague notices.

PRIYAMDA MEDIA & INFOTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1598/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted additions related to unconfirmed sundry payables and ad-hoc disallowance of expenses. It restricted the disallowance for non-deposit of TDS to 30% of the amount. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted due to vague notices.

NAV BHARAT STONE CRUSHER,HISAR vs ITO, WARD-1, BHIWANI

ITA 1147/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation of delay afresh. This was based on the assessee's claim that the intimation was signed in 2023 and not received, and the peculiar facts of the case.

MAHAGUN INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE-75(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 998/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: Heard15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the AO on 28/12/2017 was barred by limitation as per Section 201(3) of the Act. Furthermore, a prior assessment for the same AY had already been completed, making the second assessment void ab initio.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs SH. BRIJ MOHAN MAHAJAN, NEW DELHI

ITA 5213/DEL/2011[2009-10]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs SMT ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 3860/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute the apparent consideration in sale deeds with his calculated market value without any corroborative material. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration exceeded that disclosed in the sale deeds, which was not discharged.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs M/S. JANAK RAJ GUPTA & CO., NEW DELHI

ITA 969/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs SMT ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 3859/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute the apparent consideration in sale deeds with his calculated market value without any corroborative material. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration exceeded that disclosed in the sale deeds, which was not discharged.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs MS. JANAK RAJ GUPTA & CO., NEW DELHI

ITA 622/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs SMT. ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 3831/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2005-06Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute the apparent consideration in sale deeds with his calculated market value without any corroborative material. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration exceeded that disclosed in the sale deeds, which was not discharged.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs M/S. SATYA REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3826/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute the apparent consideration in sale deeds with his calculated market value without any corroborative material. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the actual consideration exceeded that disclosed in the sale deeds, which was not discharged.

MAHAGUN REAL ESTATE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE-75(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 997/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: Heard15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the AO on 28/12/2017 was barred by limitation as per Section 201(3) of the Act. Furthermore, a prior assessment for the same AY had already been completed, making the second assessment void ab initio.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs M/S. JANAK RAJ GUPTA & CO., NEW DELHI

ITA 968/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2006-07Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.