The Tribunal held that section 54F does not require submission of a completion certificate. The key takeaway is that actual investment and timely construction, supported by evidence, are decisive.
The Tribunal held that once TDS is reflected in Form 26AS and deposited with the government, credit cannot be denied merely on technical grounds.
The issue was whether satellite transmission fees constitute royalty in India. The Tribunal held that Article 12 of the DTAA governs and the receipts are not royalty. Domestic law amendments cannot override the treaty.
The issue was whether late fee could be levied for delayed TDS returns filed before 01.06.2015. The Tribunal held that section 234E is prospective. Late fee demands for earlier years were deleted.
The issue was whether a hydro power subsidy should reduce the cost of assets. The Tribunal held the subsidy was for project encouragement, not asset cost. Depreciation withdrawal was therefore unsustainable.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE based on cash found during proceedings. However, the Tribunal found the foundational approval under section 153D defective. The entire assessment was therefore quashed.
The dispute involved confirmation of unexplained cash deposits without granting a requested VC hearing. The Tribunal held that denial of virtual hearing violated natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Despite allegations of sham sub-contracts, the project was shown to be completed, commissioned and operational. The Tribunal held that once the asset exists and is used, depreciation cannot be denied without concrete proof of bogus cost.
The Tribunal ruled that section 271AAB applies only to undisclosed income found in search, not to routine disallowances from recorded books.
ITAT Delhi held that mere Whatsapp messages showing demand do not justify Section 69A additions unless actual receipt of money is proved.
