The Tribunal held that failure to indicate the precise charge in a Section 274 notice renders penalty proceedings unsustainable. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that CPC cannot deny carry forward of losses during processing under Section 143(1) without issuing prior intimation notice. Since losses were accepted in earlier years, the adjustment was set aside.
The Tribunal emphasized that the test under Section 57(iii) is one of purpose and connection. As the assessee demonstrated reasonable nexus between borrowings and interest income, the deduction was upheld.
Relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court rulings, the Tribunal ruled that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction. The reassessment proceedings were set aside for non-compliance with Section 151.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot apply where the assessee held less than 10% shareholding in the lending company. As statutory thresholds were not met, the deemed dividend addition was largely deleted.
Holding that Rule 46A mandates recording reasons and giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut new evidence, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remitted the issue.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessment order was invalid as it was not served in accordance with Section 282 and Rule 127. In absence of proof of proper service within limitation, the entire assessment was quashed as void.
The Tribunal found that advances of ₹50 lakh each were duly recorded, confirmed, and repaid. With no unexplained credit involved, the addition of ₹90 lakh was deleted and the appeal allowed.
Holding that the search team did not examine the source of cash properly, the Tribunal directed bifurcation of penalty—30% on declared income and 60% on unexplained income.
