The ITAT Delhi set aside an addition of Rs.44.50 lakh, alleged as commission income on fund routing transactions, due to the CIT(A)’s failure to pass a speaking order. The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for a fresh, de novo assessment to verify documents and provide reasoned findings, ensuring compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities’ action of treating the ₹2.55 lakh returned income as under-reported, as the return was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice issued before the statutory due date. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made on cash deposits.1
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the attachment of ₹5.5 crore in assets belonging to an IAS officer’s family, ruling that the properties were acquired using laundered bribe money from the coal levy scam. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent, the Tribunal held that even pre-offence assets can be attached as value-equivalent proceeds of crime under PMLA.
ITAT Delhi held that cash seized during search operations can be adjusted against self-assessment tax. The order distinguishes between advance tax and self-assessment tax, directing deletion of demand raised by CPC.
The ITAT Delhi invalidated reassessment proceedings because the Section 148 notice was issued two days prior to obtaining the mandatory statutory sanction under Section 151 from the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal held that obtaining the requisite approval is a precondition for valid reopening, and issuing the notice before approval renders the entire action void ab initio.
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an addition made under Section 69, ruling that in cases of alleged “on-money” payments found during a search, only the embedded profit component is taxable. Following the Gujarat High Court precedent, the Tribunal restricted the unexplained investment addition of Rs.1.25 lakh to just 30% (Rs.37,500).
The ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 56(2)(viib) addition, ruling that the CIT(A) acted improperly by selectively accepting valuation evidence for one issue (Sec. 68) but rejecting it for the share premium issue. The matter was remanded for a fresh review of the valuation evidence, establishing that all relevant material must be considered fairly.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the ED’s attachment of a resort property, ruling it a benami transaction designed to circumvent the law, especially after media scrutiny over CRZ violations. The court found that the beneficial owner’s act of guaranteeing the benamidar’s loan used for the property purchase confirmed the beneficial control.
The ITAT Panaji sent the disallowance of agricultural income back to the AO for fresh review, finding that the lower authorities ignored substantial documents and confirmations provided by the assessee. The ruling confirms that tax authorities must properly verify factual material and grant a fair hearing before disbelieving a farm income claim.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that External Development Charges (EDC) paid by a real estate developer to HUDA are statutory government levies, not payments for the use of land. Following High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 194I (TDS on rent) is not applicable to EDC payments.
