Tribunal ruled that the Section 148 notice issued on 29.07.2022 was beyond the limitation period under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal (2024) decision. Reassessment proceedings were declared void, and the assessee’s appeal was fully allowed.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a Rs.18.01 lakh penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1), holding that once the underlying assessment order is set aside, the consequential penalty order cannot survive. The Tribunal clarified that the AO may initiate fresh penalty proceedings only after framing a new assessment with additions.
Delhi ITAT deleted ₹40.07 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-era cash deposits in proprietary firms, because the AO had accepted the audited books showing sufficient cash balance. The ruling emphasizes that additions for business deposits cant be made when the books arent rejected and sales/purchases arent doubted.
The Delhi ITAT in Jain Textile Industries v ACIT upheld the validity of a Section 147 reopening, ruling that where specific issues like omitted interest income and capital expenditure on accessories were not examined in the original assessment, the reopening is not a mere ‘change of opinion’ and is justified, even after four years.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a disallowance of Rs.1.22 crore, ruling that charges paid to the Stock Exchange for margin shortfall are regulatory fees, not penalties for offenses prohibited by law. Following Delhi High Court precedent, the Tribunal held these payments are allowable commercial business expenditure under Section 37(1)
ITAT Delhi held that cash-in-hand reflected in audited books remains valid even if no return was filed for the prior year, deleting the entire unexplained cash addition.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of Vivaan Prakash, quashing the u/s 153C assessment for AY 2018-19. The Tribunal ruled that the single u/s 153D approval granted by the Addl. CIT for two assessment years was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the entire assessment based on precedents like PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (Delhi HC).
Relying on Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the Tribunal held that granting a consolidated, template-style approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D is illegal. The key takeaway is that the mandatory approval for a search assessment (Sec. 153C/153D) requires independent application of mind for each assessment year.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that Marketing & Reservation Contributions (MRC) received by a US-based hotel brand entity from Indian franchisees are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Royalty under the India-US DTAA. The Tribunal followed the principle of judicial consistency, reiterating that these receipts were not compensation for managerial or technical services.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal, deleting a ₹2.18 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on palm oil imports. Tribunal ruled that taxpayer rightly used Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method based on Kuala Lumpur Commodity Exchange (KLCE)-derived broker quotes, confirming CUP as the most appropriate method for commodity trading.
