ITAT ruled that reopening was bad in law as reasons cited property purchases, while additions related to cash credits—showing no live nexus. The case reaffirms that reassessment must be based on specific, relevant material.
Delhi ITAT held that non-filing of Form 10B is a curable defect and the assessee must be given an opportunity under section 139(9). Gross receipts cannot be taxed in entirety if exemptions fail.
The ITAT held that cash deposits recorded in books and from legitimate business sales during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. Entire addition of ₹45.23 lakh was quashed.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of ₹2.57 crore TP adjustment, confirming that mere margin variations do not trigger 80IA(10) without evidence of profit manipulation. Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal, holding that the assessee was entitled to ₹2.36 crore deduction under Section 54F. Evidence showed only one residential property purchase, and farmhouse classification did not disqualify the claim.
Commission payments to agents were held genuine for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. Tribunal directed deletion of disallowances as payments were backed by bank records, TDS, and recipient confirmations.
Delhi ITAT upholds CIT(A) order, ruling that only profit embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
ITAT Delhi held that AY 2011-12 is barred by limitation under Section 153C as the deemed search year started only when documents were received in 2021, nullifying the reassessment and related penalties.
ITAT Delhi held that operating a primary school itself constitutes “education,” removing the need for CBSE or DOE affiliation for 12A registration under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal emphasized that an error regarding VRS exemption made by a salaried, non-technical taxpayer cannot be classified as deliberate under-reporting. With no false claim or suppression, the 270A penalty was deleted.
