ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance on deduction u/s 80IA for ground handling profits at DIAL and CIAL. Citing SC precedent (Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.),
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal, confirming deletion of a Rs. 25 crore penalty imposed under Section 271D. Tribunal ruled that penalty, based solely on a seized MOU and assumptions without proof of cash movement, was not legally sustainable.
ITAT Delhi quashes Rs.8.16 crore addition on share capital and commission, emphasizing that mere suspicion without evidence cannot justify tax additions. Investor genuineness and banking records were upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s suspicion, without material evidence, was insufficient to prove the non-genuineness of a partner’s capital contribution. This case clarifies the legal burden of proof under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that a 12% trade discount to an overseas buyer is not commission and cannot attract TDS under Section 195. The Tribunal ruled that the CIT cannot override the AO’s assessment without independent examination, quashing the Section 263 revision and consequential reassessment.
In HIM Restaurants Private Limited Vs ITO, the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld tax additions, confirming the rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) due to the assessee’s failure to produce evidence and discrepancies in its financial reporting.
ITAT Delhi annuls tax assessments on Nanak Chand Tayal, ruling that the blanket, mechanical approval under Section 153D was invalid and against judicial precedents from Delhi and Orissa High Courts.
Delhi ITAT restores Silverton Pulp And Papers Pvt. Ltd.’s appeal to the CIT(A) to verify the applicability of Section 56(2)(x)(b) to a disputed agricultural land purchase, where the stamp valuation authority valued it as residential.
The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in Shelender Kumar Jain Vs ACIT, has ruled against making adhoc disallowances on verified business expenses.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment orders against three companies. The court ruled that an AO cannot rely solely on a retracted statement to initiate reopening proceedings.
