Analyzing the recent ITAT Delhi ruling in Navneet Bhardwaj Vs PCIT, which nullified a revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17, touching upon the legal intricacies and implications.
Held that the cash sales and corresponding cash deposits have been a regular feature of the business of the assessee and there is certainly no abnormal trend of cash sales and cash deposit during the demonetization period. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that attribution of profit from offshore supply and services to the Permanent Establishment unsustainable as assessee didn’t have any Permanent Establishment in India in the assessment years under dispute.
Assessing Officer’s claims on the irregularity of additional salary payments are unfounded, says ITAT. When payments are made via cheque and duly recorded, there’s no reason to treat them as ‘outside the books.’ The assessee provided evidence that these are year-end calculations, not fictitious transactions. The additional salaries are legitimate and shouldn’t be interpolated for 12 months.
ITAT Delhi passed a significant judgment in ITO Vs Essjay Enterprises, focusing on classification of income derived from sale of agricultural land and shares.
ITAT Delhi held that as there is no copyright on live events, the license fees for live and non-live transmission right cannot be taxed as royaty in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that law does not confer any power on the Assessing Officer to either withdraw or modify or substitute one assessment order passed by him earlier with another assessment order subsequently.
Finance Act, 2017 removed clause (i) of section 92BA, effectively nullifying any decisions made by the Assessing Officer under this section. Reference to the TPO under section 92CA also becomes invalid
ITAT rules that an assessee isn’t responsible for a non-responsive supplier when purchases were made in earlier years. Lack of supplier’s response to a section 133(6) notice doesn’t invalidate the transaction.
ITAT Delhi held that software licence fee received as reimbursement, in absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, is not taxable. Accordingly, addition towards the same deleted.
