The ITAT Delhi deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited, ruling that the penalty cannot survive once the original quantum assessment (which determined the high turnover) is set aside. Since the AO later accepted the returned income, the statutory basis for the penalty lapsed.
The Supreme Court mandated specific performance for a property sale, ruling that the vendor’s acceptance of an extra payment after the initial period expired constituted a waiver of the right to terminate. The Court restored the sale decree, affirming that time is not automatically the essence in immovable property contracts.
ITAT Delhi nullified a reassessment, ruling that mandatory sanction under Section 151 was invalid because it was granted by Principal Commissioner (PCIT). Tribunal held that reopening assessments after three years requires approval from higher authority: Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT).
ITAT Delhi confirmed that a statutory development authority’s activities, such as land development and housing, are charitable under Section 2(15), not commercial. The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency, relying on multiple High Court and ITAT precedents for similar development bodies.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s view that assessments for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 fell outside permissible six-year block under Section 153C. Additions made by AO were held time-barred and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the assessment under Section 153C was time-barred because the block period must be calculated from the date the Assessing Officer (AO) of the non-searched person received the seized material. The ruling confirms that the date of the original search is irrelevant for non-searched persons.
ITAT Delhi ruled that Section 50C, which allows revaluing property based on circle rates, applies only to the seller in a transfer, not the buyer in a slump sale governed by Section 50B. The Tribunal held that goodwill is depreciable, but its value must be verified by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
ITAT Delhi deleted a penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) against a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) for alleged non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice.1 The court ruled that service of notice, not mere issuance, is mandatory, and lacking proof of service on the UK resident constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi dismissed cross-appeals from the assessee and Revenue, citing the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The ruling reaffirms that Section 238 of the IBC has an overriding effect on the Income-tax Act, mandating all tax claims be lodged with the Resolution Professional.
ITAT Delhi set aside 43 search assessments involving a business group and its associates, ruling that the mass approvals granted under Section 153D were invalid.1 The Tribunal held that approving 23 draft orders within 24 hours without proper review constitutes a mechanical, non-judicial exercise of power.
