ITAT Delhi held that reassessment cannot survive when additions are made on issues unrelated to the reasons recorded for reopening. The ruling reinforces that the scope of reassessment must remain confined to the original basis of jurisdiction.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income represented by profit embedded in commodity transactions was only Rs. 4.27 lakh, far below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold under Section 149(1)(b).
ITAT Delhi confirmed disallowance of a Section 80GGC claim after relying on investigation findings that the political party operated as an accommodation entry provider. The ruling emphasizes substance over form in tax deduction claims.
The Tribunal ruled that non-deduction of tax pursuant to subsisting High Court directions cannot attract liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The key takeaway is that employers cannot be penalized for obeying judicial mandates.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer erred in applying a 6% net profit rate without examining comparable cases engaged in the same line of business. The decision highlights the necessity of objective criteria while estimating profits after rejection of books.
The Tribunal held that the special tax regime under Section 115BBE is confined to additions made under Sections 68 to 69D. Additions arising under normal provisions of the Act cannot automatically attract higher taxation.
The Tribunal held that preference share capital cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit once the assessee establishes identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of investors. Documentary evidence and banking records were found sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that notices issued after three years from the relevant assessment year require prior approval from the PCCIT. Approval from the PCIT in such cases renders the reassessment notice legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessee who delayed filing an appeal while awaiting disposal of a Section 154 application had shown sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 cannot be invoked where the assessee never claimed the alleged expenditure as a deduction. Without any allowance in the assessment order, there can be no prejudice to Revenue.
