The issue was whether filing ITR-7 instead of ITR-5 justified blanket disallowance of expenses. ITAT held that wrong ITR selection is a procedural lapse and cannot wipe out genuine expenditure.
The AO passed a rectification order while the core section 50C addition was pending fresh adjudication. ITAT ruled that such parallel adjudication leads to inconsistency and must be avoided.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 148 notices issued with approval from an incorrect authority are invalid. Reassessment orders for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were quashed.
The issue was whether bogus purchases disallowed under section 37(1) must be reclassified as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. ITAT held that where the source of expenditure is known, section 69C cannot be mechanically invoked.
ITAT Delhi ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made without AO recording satisfaction under Section 14A(2), fully deleting ₹23.38 lakh claimed from exempt dividend income.
The Tribunal held that AIR-triggered reopening and additions cannot stand where an NRI explains investments with foreign remittance evidence, and remanded the case for fresh verification.
The AO made a ₹90 lakh addition under section 68 despite the case being under limited scrutiny. ITAT held that crossing the approved scope renders the addition and assessment void.
The ITAT held that the proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of source of source applies only from AY 2013–14. Since the year involved was AY 2008–09, the ₹32.04 crore share capital addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The ITAT held that reassessment based only on Investigation Wing inputs, without independent application of mind, is invalid. Since reopening itself failed, the Section 68 share capital addition could not survive.
The ITAT ruled that an inadvertent mistake in selecting the assessment year while filing Form 10AB cannot defeat an existing valid registration. Mechanical rejection without record verification was held unsustainable.
