ITAT Delhi deletes ₹2.10 Cr addition u/s 68 for share call-money; statements not supplied or cross-examined. Identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of subscribers proven; ad-hoc disallowance also deleted.
The Tribunal examined alleged bogus payments to 27 sub-contractors treated as undisclosed income. While the Assessing Officer made large additions, the assessee provided affidavits confirming genuineness. The ruling partly allowed the appeals, stressing careful verification of evidence rather than assumptions.
ITAT Chennai struck down a protective addition of ₹14.91 Cr made u/s 69, citing invalid u/s 153C jurisdiction. No substantive assessment existed in the companies’ hands for AY 2014-15, reinforcing that protective additions require year-wise satisfaction and corroborative evidence.
Tribunal confirmed that powers to question “source of source” under section 68 exist only from 01-04-2023. Additions on unsecured loans and student deposits were deleted, while TDS disallowance was remanded.
ITAT Chennai ruled that for captive power consumption, the market value for Section 80-IA deduction should be the rate at which electricity is supplied to industrial consumers, not the SEB purchase rate. AO’s downward adjustment was deleted.
ITAT Delhi ruled that additions under section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material specific to the assessee. All unbooked commission additions for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by relying solely on an investigation report without examining books and invoices, and therefore sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that once CPC allowed the 80JJAA deduction through a subsequent Section 154 order, the earlier rectification appeal no longer survived. The appeal was dismissed as academic, with a clarification that no extra deduction beyond what CPC allowed could be granted.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is remanded, directing the AO to re-decide the penalty after the quantum order is finalized.
The case examined whether the tax officer was justified in rejecting the assessee’s DCF-based share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that once DCF is chosen, the AO cannot switch to NAV merely because subsequent financials differ from projections
