The Delhi ITAT held that lack of knowledge of the assessment order constituted sufficient cause for delayed filing before the CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of delayed PF and ESI deposits through Section 143(1) adjustment was unsustainable because the issue was highly debatable at the relevant time.
The issue was deletion of additions on unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits. The tribunal upheld deletion, holding that a favourable remand report confirming genuineness and creditworthiness weakens the Revenue’s case.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked in absence of exempt income. It clarified that taxable dividend income eliminates the basis for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that reporting income in the wrong schedule does not amount to concealment. It ruled that tax cannot be levied when income is already disclosed, even if incorrectly classified.
The issue was whether approval under Section 151 granted without reasons is valid. The Tribunal held mechanical approval invalid, rendering the reassessment void and unsustainable.
The tribunal held that reopening of assessment was invalid due to invocation of the wrong Explanation under Section 147 despite a completed assessment under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credits must be taxed in the year they are recorded in the books, not when allegedly received. Since the ₹80 lakh was credited in AY 1997–98, the addition under Section 68 was upheld despite claims of earlier receipt.
The tribunal held that reassessment fails if no addition is made on the issue cited for reopening. Additions on unrelated grounds were declared beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural lapse. It restored the matter to the AO to verify and allow Foreign Tax Credit if eligible.
