While sustaining additions on merits, ITAT Delhi restricted taxable income to a lump-sum 8% of Section 68-type amounts. The estimation was granted as a one-time relief and expressly not treated as a precedent.
Gourav Chand Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Delhi ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A), NFAC sustaining addition of ₹50.45 lakh towards cash deposits and restored the entire matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal noted that though the AO had issued notices u/s 142(1), the assessment was completed in undue haste within […]
The Tribunal clarified that the institution existed solely for education and had no unrelated profit-oriented objects. Hence, the stricter test laid down in New Noble Educational Society did not apply.
The Tribunal admitted a gift deed filed for the first time before it, noting that the donor was no longer alive. The ₹26.36 lakh addition was remanded for verification of the deed and surrounding circumstances.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowing outstanding sub-contract expenses payable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit without specific reasoning and without pointing out defects in books of accounts is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted.
The Tribunal quashed the Assessing Officer’s action of taxing the entire purchase value after invoking Section 145(3). Only estimated profit embedded in such purchases, if higher than declared profit, can be brought to tax.
The Tribunal reiterated that tax authorities cannot impose notional income merely because interest could have been charged. Commercial decisions on interest-free advances lie with the assessee, not the assessing officer.
The issue involved denial of charitable registration citing delay and lack of evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee deserved a final opportunity to substantiate activities before a fresh decision is taken.
ITAT Delhi emphasized that FAR analysis governs segmentation for transfer pricing purposes. Artificial aggregation without disproving segmental allocation cannot justify adjustments.
The ITAT held that rejecting Rule 11UA valuation without verifying exclusions of non-realisable assets violates natural justice. Valuation additions were remanded for fresh examination, stressing non-mechanical application of deeming provisions.
