Delhi High Court held that tax authorities cannot replace projected business valuations with actual results when assessing transfer pricing, emphasizing commercial prudence principle in asset transfers.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) cannot be imposed when TDS delay is due to technical reasons and the assessee has already paid compounding charges and interest.
The tribunal dismissed both assessee and Revenue appeals, confirming that income from accommodation entries can be estimated at 5% of credit entries in the bank. The ruling clarifies that when commissions are claimed on transactions without actual goods delivery, a reasonable percentage can be applied to determine taxable income.
ITAT Delhi upheld that non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to HUDA constitutes default under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Following High Court precedent in Puri Construction, the ruling clarifies that such payments attract TDS under section 194C even without a formal contract.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal challenging PCIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, holding that the Commissioner can revise orders even when the matter is pending before CIT(A). Key takeaway: jurisdiction under Sec. 263 extends to unresolved appeals.
ITAT Delhi set aside the income tax assessment for AY 2020-21 after the proprietor’s death, directing the Assessing Officer to decide afresh on the legal representative’s liability. The ruling emphasizes proper recognition of legal heirs in tax proceedings.
Tribunal clarified that a DVO report, being an estimation, cannot form sole basis for additions under Section 69B. Without proof of actual extra expenditure by assessee, such additions are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi condoned a delay of over 1,000 days in filing an appeal, holding that the Covid-19 period stands excluded under the Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation, allowing the assessee’s appeal to proceed.
The Tribunal found that subscription payments were made for using copyrighted articles, not for using copyright itself. Hence, the income was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the DTAA with the USA.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
