Delhi ITAT held that adding hypothetical interest on security deposits to compute ALV is impermissible. The decision reverses lower authorities, confirming that only real contractual rent counts as income under section 23(1).
Delhi High Court held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without any incriminating material found during search. The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, reaffirming that additions under section 153A require evidence of undisclosed income or assets.
The Court ruled that services rendered remotely cannot create a PE because the treaty requires services furnished within India through employees. virtual presence cannot substitute physical presence without treaty amendment.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Courts view that nomination alone guarantees absolute entitlement. It emphasized that beneficiaries must follow succession law, splitting the GPF 50% each between eligible family members.
The Court held that both salary and farm income must be considered, increasing the deceased’s monthly income to ₹8,000. ignoring legitimate income sources leads to undervalued compensation.
The Court held that strict documentary proof of salary is not mandatory and adopted a reasonable income figure. liberal standards apply when determining earnings for young accident victims.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO under Sections 148A(b) and 148 after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, is without jurisdiction and void. The reassessment order based on such notice was consequently quashed. This ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for faceless reassessment under the 2022 scheme.
Applying the Supreme Court’s principle, the Tribunal held that an explanation unproved but not disproved cannot attract Section 271(1)(c) penalty. It noted that the department failed to show falsity in the assessee’s claims. The takeaway is that penalty requires clear evidence of incorrect particulars, not mere inadequacy of proof.
The Tribunal observed that Form 67 was available before 143(1) processing, making the denial of FTC unjustified. It set aside the appellate order and directed the AO to grant FTC after verification.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
