ITAT Delhi partly allowed assessee’s appeal, reducing unexplained income from ₹10.08 crore to ₹2.22 crore and lowering commission on inter-mediated transactions from 3% to a fair 1%, emphasizing verification of cash and cheque entries under same code.
CBDT’s 2025 Search & Seizure Manual guides tax officers on lawful, tech-driven investigations under Sections 132–132B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that sales made to Jyoti Products were genuine, supported by ledgers and invoices. The 25% disallowance by the AO under Section 37 was deleted, as Section 37 applies only to business expenditure, not sales transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that the absence of office premises and expatriate activity meant the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal ruled that Revenue cannot rely solely on past orders without verifying current-year facts.
The ITAT ruled that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 by relying on unverified external information (e.g., SEBI data and license suspension claims) to label purchases as bogus, without providing this information to the assessee for rebuttal. The tribunal deleted the revisionary order, confirming that the PCIT acted illegally by presuming facts and ignoring the documentary proof of purchase genuineness.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s V.C. Shukla principle, reaffirming that loose papers seized from third parties are without evidentiary value unless properly linked to the assessee through verified facts. ITAT, therefore, quashed both the 69A addition and the underlying 147 reopening as being based on mere surmises and conjectures.
Delhi High Court rules in PCIT v. Amadeus India that no Transfer Pricing adjustment is warranted for AMP expenses, citing no ‘international transaction.’ The Court reiterates the Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective from AY 2022-23, not retrospective, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2018-19.
This ruling underscores the requirement for independent verification of uncorroborated search material, deleting additions made for unexplained cash under Section 69A and Capital Gains based on an employee’s diary. ITAT’s decision confirms that mere suspicion or rough personal notings, full of inconsistencies, cannot be the foundation for substantial tax demands.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the denial of the right to cross-examine a third party whose statement forms the foundation of a tax addition constitutes a serious violation of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside the 68 additions of 1.56 crore (across two years) and remanded the case to the AO for de novo assessment with mandatory opportunity for cross-examination.
Madras High Court granted an interim stay on all recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against the reassessment order. The Court explicitly linked its decision and the case’s future to the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in Hexaware Technologies, establishing a clear procedural precedent for similar reassessment writ petitions.
