The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal {ITAT} Delhi set aside the CIT{A}’s order, remanding the addition of ₹5 crore under Section 68 back for fresh scrutiny. The issue revolves around Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. receiving share capital at a high premium from 13 companies that the Assessing Officer (AO} suspected were paper companies due to unserved statutory notices.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 153A for an unabated assessment year because the Assessing Officer relied solely on entries in the regular books of account. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s mandate that no addition is permissible in completed (unabated) assessments without specific, incriminating material seized during the search.
Article contain all benefit available to Small Businessmen including provisions for Presumptive Taxation Scheme, Various deductions available from business profits, Maintenance of books of accounts and audit thereof, Exemptions and Deductions, Tax Deducted at Source and Advance Tax, Basic exemption limits, Concessional tax rate for domestic company and Exemption from e-filing of return of income.
Delhi ITAT held that delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions are disallowable even under section 143(1), citing Supreme Court in Checkmate Services. However, ICDS-based depreciation adjustments exceed CPC powers and were deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that when an assessee’s own funds far exceed interest-free advances, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) can be made. Interest addition of ₹5.62 crore was deleted, and 14A disallowance was limited to dividend-yielding investments.
The ITAT Chennai Bench dismissed an appeal because the Assessing Officer (AO) was located in Hyderabad, violating Rule 4 which dictates ITAT jurisdiction is based on the AO’s office. The ruling affirmed the principle from the Supreme Court that appeals must be filed before the correct jurisdictional ITAT Bench, though it granted the taxpayer liberty to refile properly.
The ITAT ruled on a Transfer Pricing adjustment, holding that companies failing the 75% export filter (MAA Business Solutions) and the Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter (WNS Global) must be excluded from the comparable set for ITES providers. The Tribunal directed a fresh re-computation of the arm’s length price (ALP) after applying correct filters, providing relief to the assessee.
The ITAT ruled that a claimed business loss on the sale of a scrip, allegedly part of a penny stock syndicate, was genuine and allowable. The ruling emphasized that transactions supported by complete documentation (contract notes, demat, bank statements) and where no tax-exempt capital gain was claimed cannot be disallowed merely based on a general modus operandi or third-party information.
ITAT directed the AO/TPO to accept the corrected operating margins for comparables in the Business Support Services segment, specifically for Forbes Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal’s order rectifies computational errors and ensures that the benchmarking is based on correct financial data, allowing for proper recomputation of the ALP.
ITAT annulled an assessment and addition of $\text{Rs. }31.80$ crore of share capital made under Section 153C, ruling that the jurisdiction was invalid for an unabated assessment year. The key takeaway is that for an already completed assessment, the AO must rely on incriminating material found during the search, not mere statutory documents already in the books.
