ITAT Delhi restored the appeal to CIT(A) after the assessee challenged notice issuance beyond limitation and under wrong section. Key takeaway: adherence to correct procedure is crucial in income tax assessments.
Despite CIT(A) noting missing ITRs, Tribunal allowed TDS credit on the Rs. 1 crore part payment. Decision reinforces that TDS on income already taxed must be recognized and credited.
The Tribunal ruled that when a 143(3) assessment merely adopts 143(1) figures without examining adjustments, taxpayers can still appeal the 143(1) intimation. Key takeaway: merger does not automatically block appeals.
ITAT modified CIT(A)’s 20% addition on alleged bogus purchases to 15%, considering actual sales and material usage. The ruling ensures only profit embedded in disputed purchases is taxed.
The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to TDS credit if the tax was deducted at source, even if the employer failed to deposit it or issue Form 16. Tax authorities cannot penalize the employee for the employer’s lapses.
Tribunal deleted 10% ad-hoc disallowances on travelling and telephone expenses as the assessee produced complete vouchers and audited books. Authorities cannot impose blanket disallowances without specific inquiry.
The tribunal confirmed that in search assessments under section 153A, no separate notice under section 143(2) is required. The assessee’s procedural objection was dismissed, aligning with Delhi High Court precedent.
The Tribunal remitted the case for fresh adjudication after observing that the CIT(A) did not decide the matter on merit. Assessee was directed to furnish evidence to substantiate exemption of corpus donations under section 11(1)(d).
The CIT(A)’s assumption of delay was corrected, restoring the appeal for adjudication. The ruling reinforces that statutory timelines are calculated from actual notice, ensuring fairness in tax appeals.
The assessee’s appeal succeeded in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the additional income was already declared in the return. The court held that initiating penalty proceedings on disclosed income exceeds the AO’s jurisdiction and is impermissible.
