ITAT confirmed that External Development Charges paid to HUDA constitute payment for work, making TDS deduction mandatory and sustaining the demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Tribunal ruled that audited books cannot be discarded based on generic doubts or missing vouchers. Without identifying concrete defects, the AO’s rejection of books and 12.5% profit estimation were found legally unsustainable.
Tribunal ruled that a 148 notice issued on 03.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 violated Section 149(1)(b)’s six-year limitation, rendering entire reassessment void. The is that notices issued after 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 are invalid.
The Delhi ITAT held that reopening an assessment based solely on audit objections, without fresh material, is invalid. The tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be used for a mere change of opinion
ITAT held that delay must be assessed from the date of service, condoned a 474-day delay, and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the 42-day delay on merits.
The ITAT held that crucial documents unavailable earlier must be considered, admitting them under Rule 29 and sending the ₹2.38 crore addition back for fresh examination.
The ITAT ruled that failure to issue a mandatory Section 143(2) notice and disregarding an e-verified return rendered the reassessment void. The addition of ₹50.50 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Delhi remanded the case to verify whether imports made using a firm’s PAN were recorded in the company’s books. CIT(A) deletion was quashed as factual examination was needed.
The Tribunal held that reopening cannot stand when the show-cause notice cites one allegation (bogus ITC) but the final order relies on another (bogus purchases). The jurisdictional inconsistency invalidated the entire reassessment.
ITAT struck down ₹17.5 lakh salary disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) because the AO relied on a statement of a different person. Standalone statements without corroboration cannot sustain additions.
