The Tribunal ruled that the Delhi Assessing Officer could not legally assess the taxpayer when jurisdiction continued to remain with Mumbai authorities. The decision underscores that jurisdiction cannot shift without following statutory procedures.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish escaped income of ₹50 lakh or more, a prerequisite for extending the assessment period beyond six years. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory thresholds for extended reassessment.
ITAT Delhi held that protective additions cannot survive when the same income has already been assessed substantively in the hands of the real beneficiaries. The key takeaway is that the Revenue cannot tax identical income twice in different hands.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored the statutory threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. The ruling emphasizes that reassessment notices issued contrary to limitation provisions are void in law.
ITAT found that the Assessing Officer incorrectly treated consignment transactions as the assessees turnover based solely on cess payments. The ruling emphasizes that commission agents should be taxed on commission income and not on consignors turnover.
The Tribunal admitted lenders’ tax returns and bank statements and remanded the Section 68 issue for fresh examination. The matter was sent back for verification of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness.
The Tribunal held that property investment funded through documented foreign remittances from the assessee’s husband could not be treated as unexplained. Bank records and remittance confirmations established the complete source of funds.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue relied only on generalized investigation findings. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the assessee to any accommodation entry arrangement and deleted both additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had fully explained the source of investment through bank records showing direct payment by her father. The addition under Section 69 was deleted as unsupported by evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A must be computed only with reference to investments that actually yielded exempt income. The Tribunal also deleted interest disallowance after finding that the assessee’s interest-free funds exceeded its investments.
