ITAT Delhi upholds the quashing of s. 153C assessment for AY 2012-13, ruling it’s beyond the 10-year block of limitation as per s. 153A/C and Delhi High Court precedent in Ojjus Medicare.
Jaipur ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeals in Nath Corporation, Royal Jewellers, and Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal cases, deleting Rs. 3.3 crore in penalties.
ITAT Delhi rules wife not liable to prove husband and sons’ source of funds for property purchase. Addition of Rs.1.10 Cr u/s 69 quashed as family funds explained.
Sanjay Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee challenged assessments framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) on the ground that mandatory approval u/s 153D was granted mechanically without proper application of mind. AO had made an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69, which was confirmed by CIT(A)-24, New Delhi vide order dated 28.02.2025. Before Tribunal, […]
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained on the basis of a PAN mismatch alone, especially when the assessee, an individual with no business activity, was wrongly linked to a corporate entity.
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.
