ITAT Delhi ruled that the holding period for capital gains purposes began from the date of full payment and transfer of possession under the agreement to sell, not the later registration date. The property was therefore treated as a long-term capital asset.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not alter book profit under Section 115JB by disallowing losses from alleged penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that such adjustment was not permitted under the statutory explanations to Section 115JB.
Relying on its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that gross profit should be estimated at 0.40% rather than 2% of turnover. The order emphasised consistency in estimation across assessment years.
ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that such non-compliance violated the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
ITAT Delhi ruled that where an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal set aside the capital gains addition for fresh determination.
The ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required for constituting a Fixed Place PE under the India-Canada DTAA.
Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It observed that valuation is based on assumptions and future business expectations prevailing on valuation date.
ITAT Delhi held that the amendment excluding goodwill from depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) applies prospectively from 01.04.2021. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on goodwill for earlier assessment years following judicial precedents.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a revenue audit objection without fresh tangible material were invalid. The Tribunal ruled that such reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery expenses as perquisite under Section 17(2) were not satisfied. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
