Delhi ITAT held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid where the satisfaction note for the non-searched person was recorded after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C(3) barred such proceedings, rendering the assessments void.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made where the assessee’s interest-free funds substantially exceeded its investments. It reaffirmed that the Revenue must establish a direct nexus between borrowings and exempt-income investments.
The Tribunal found that none of the purchasers examined by the Department had admitted making cash payments to the assessee. In the absence of statements, receipts, diaries, or other incriminating material, the allegation of on-money remained unsubstantiated. The addition based on presumptions was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly complied with statutory requirements by obtaining approval after modifying its objects. The CIT(E)’s finding of non-compliance was therefore contrary to the record. Renewal of registration was directed in the absence of any adverse findings on charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that an inadvertent mistake in Schedule 112A relating to the acquisition period of mutual fund units could be rectified under Section 154. Since the evidence showed that the assets were acquired before 31.01.2018, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains after verification.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an unsigned and unauthenticated loose paper lacking any connection with the taxpayer. In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged transaction, the reopening notice and reassessment order were set aside.
ITAT Delhi set aside the assessment after finding that the assessees additional evidence had not been properly scrutinized by the tax authorities. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice before sustaining additions.
The Authority held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) does not permit reclaim of ITC already reversed under earlier rulings. It clarified that the amendment only overrides Section 16(4) and does not dilute other eligibility conditions under Section 16.
The Tribunal held that delayed filing of Form 10-IC should not defeat the assessee’s substantive right to opt for the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA. Since the intention to avail the lower tax rate was evident from the records, the benefit was allowed.
The Bombay High Court held that limitation under Section 35 of the Goa VAT Act must be computed after excluding the COVID period where the assessment order itself was served during that period. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of delay condonation.
