The dispute centered on jurisdiction to assess under Section 153A. The Tribunal clarified that Kabul Chawla principles do not bar additions in abated assessments and ordered a de novo assessment.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the impugned scrip i.e. Kyra Landscapes Ltd. is not in the list of shares in the investigation report in case of project bogus LTCG/STCL. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The approving authority merely stated that records were perused without demonstrating scrutiny. The Tribunal held that mechanical sanction defeats the statutory purpose and nullifies the assessment.
Additions under section 153A were deleted as they rested only on an unowned diary without proof of authorship or corroborative evidence. The ruling reinforces that suspicion cannot substitute proof in search cases.
The case examined a large disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) for purchases from a group concern. The Tribunal ruled that without market comparables or proof of inflated pricing, related-party payments cannot be treated as excessive.
The trust sought exemption by invoking later registration under section 12AA. The tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be granted retrospectively through section 154 when no assessment was pending on the registration date.
Revenue issued 153C notices for years far preceding the satisfaction date. Following binding judicial precedent, the tribunal ruled that such assessments were beyond the ten-year statutory window and could not survive.
The core question was whether DDA could be treated as a non-exempt payee for TDS purposes. The tribunal reaffirmed that DDA is a local authority, making section 194I inapplicable to ground rent payments.
Delhi ITAT ruled that purchases from paper companies cannot be treated as normal business expenses under Section 37(1). Fraudulent transactions with no goods delivered attract unexplained expenditure taxation under Section 69C and 115BBE.
The appellate authority had mechanically rejected additional evidence without reasons, resulting in denial of fair opportunity. The tribunal restored the quantum issue for reconsideration and quashed the consequential penalty.
