ITAT Delhi admitted additional evidence proving that bank credits considered unexplained were interest income already declared in returns. The Revenue could not contest the factual reconciliation. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted in full.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹16.97 Cr addition; Denmark-based LM Wind Power AS has no PE or business connection in India. Royalty taxable u/s 115A; penalty u/s 271AA unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi deletes ₹2.10 Cr addition u/s 68 for share call-money; statements not supplied or cross-examined. Identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of subscribers proven; ad-hoc disallowance also deleted.
The Tribunal examined alleged bogus payments to 27 sub-contractors treated as undisclosed income. While the Assessing Officer made large additions, the assessee provided affidavits confirming genuineness. The ruling partly allowed the appeals, stressing careful verification of evidence rather than assumptions.
ITAT Chennai struck down a protective addition of ₹14.91 Cr made u/s 69, citing invalid u/s 153C jurisdiction. No substantive assessment existed in the companies’ hands for AY 2014-15, reinforcing that protective additions require year-wise satisfaction and corroborative evidence.
Tribunal confirmed that powers to question “source of source” under section 68 exist only from 01-04-2023. Additions on unsecured loans and student deposits were deleted, while TDS disallowance was remanded.
ITAT Chennai ruled that for captive power consumption, the market value for Section 80-IA deduction should be the rate at which electricity is supplied to industrial consumers, not the SEB purchase rate. AO’s downward adjustment was deleted.
ITAT Delhi ruled that additions under section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material specific to the assessee. All unbooked commission additions for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by relying solely on an investigation report without examining books and invoices, and therefore sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that once CPC allowed the 80JJAA deduction through a subsequent Section 154 order, the earlier rectification appeal no longer survived. The appeal was dismissed as academic, with a clarification that no extra deduction beyond what CPC allowed could be granted.
