Delhi ITAT ruled that assessments for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 under section 153C were invalid as the statutory block period starts from the satisfaction note date, not the original search.
The tribunal held that commission paid to overseas agents was a normal business expense and not taxable in India. Since no TDS was required, disallowance under section 37(1) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while arbitrary disallowances are not sustainable, inadequate substantiation justifies estimation. Disallowances were restricted to 50% to balance fairness and compliance.
The Tribunal struck down reopening where reasons conflicted and rested solely on AIR cash-deposit data. The key takeaway is that reassessment needs a clear, reasoned nexus.
The ruling set aside a large AMP adjustment after finding that commission paid to distributors could not be recharacterized as marketing expenditure. Consistency with prior years played a decisive role in deleting the adjustment.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The issue was whether advance money from a failed land deal could be taxed as income. The Tribunal held that without clear forfeiture, section 56(2)(ix) does not apply. Key takeaway: forfeiture is mandatory to tax advances.
The issue was whether a ₹3.05 crore disallowance under section 14A could stand without nexus to exempt income. The ITAT held that only a reasonable amount with clear linkage can be disallowed, capping it at ₹10 lakh.
The issue was whether section 153C could extend beyond six years without discovery of an undisclosed asset of ₹50 lakh or more. The ITAT held that in absence of such asset-based satisfaction, extended jurisdiction is invalid.
