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.
ITAT held that reopening of assessment based solely on investigation inputs without independent verification is invalid. The reassessment and 1% commission addition were deleted, reinforcing the requirement for AO’s own application of mind.
The ITAT ruled that Section 194H does not apply to margins or discounts given to telecom distributors for prepaid products. Distributors operate on a principal-to-principal basis, so TDS cannot be imposed on amounts not paid or credited by the assessee.
The ITAT held that blank letterheads found during a search are dumb documents and cannot constitute incriminating material. Since no corroborative evidence existed, all 153A additions and penalties were invalidated, reaffirming that suspicion alone cannot sustain assessments.
The tribunal held that brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation remain in the books until fully absorbed and must be allowed as reduction under Section 115JB. The ruling rejects the Revenue’s stand and upholds the CIT(A)’s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid when the AO fails to show how the assessee withheld material facts. The AO merely copied Investigation Wing inputs without independent reasoning. The entire reassessment was declared void for violating the proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits are explained when supported by corresponding withdrawals, even without precise mapping. Once the assessee shows availability of funds, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut the explanation. The addition under Section 69A was deleted in full.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on Section 50C was unsustainable because the provision applies only to sellers, not purchasers of property. With the very foundation of reassessment failing, the addition based on circle-rate difference was deleted. The ruling underscores that incorrect legal assumptions cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
