ITAT Delhi set aside the income tax assessment for AY 2020-21 after the proprietor’s death, directing the Assessing Officer to decide afresh on the legal representative’s liability. The ruling emphasizes proper recognition of legal heirs in tax proceedings.
Tribunal remanded issue of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 to Assessing Officer for fresh verification, citing lack of adequate opportunity and consideration of evidence by lower authorities.
Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold flats treated as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under Income from House Property. The ruling clarifies that only actual rental income or sale proceeds are taxable, protecting developers from arbitrary assessments.
SC held that even with a breach of insurance policy terms, insurer must first pay accident compensation and can later recover it from vehicle owner under pay-and-recover principle.
Tribunal clarified that a DVO report, being an estimation, cannot form sole basis for additions under Section 69B. Without proof of actual extra expenditure by assessee, such additions are legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that subscription payments were made for using copyrighted articles, not for using copyright itself. Hence, the income was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the DTAA with the USA.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the AO failed to record any allegation of the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts. The ruling reaffirms that reopening beyond four years requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 147.
The Supreme Court found that the arbitrator rewrote contract terms contrary to a Railway Board policy circular and thus committed “patent illegality” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was quashed, and the High Court’s affirmance set aside.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period were from genuine business cash sales. The addition of Rs. 20.86 lakh by the AO and CIT(A) was based on assumptions and was deleted.
