The Tribunal held that a partner can claim deductions for travel, depreciation, and similar expenses from remuneration received from a firm as it qualifies as business income.
The ITAT Delhi annulled a reassessment after finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without jurisdiction, rendering the entire proceeding invalid in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s income tax return for AY 2013-14 was filed within the permissible time under Section 139. Therefore, the penalty of ₹5,000 imposed under Section 271F was unjustified and was deleted.
The ITAT held that approvals granted under Section 153D without genuine application of mind are invalid, quashing multiple assessment orders. Key takeaway: mechanical or blanket approvals violate procedural requirements and render assessments null.
ITAT ruled that the CIT (Exemption) had no power to cancel registration under Section 12AB(4) for violations that occurred before April 2022, rendering the action void.
ITAT allowed the appeal where tax authority relied on uncertified electronic records to add ₹24,50,000 as unexplained cash expenditure. Ruling underscores necessity of Section 65B certification for admissibility of electronic evidence.
ITAT ruled that additions based on property purchase were invalid as the lower authorities ignored documented sources of funds, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68.
ITAT Delhi held that Transfer Pricing Adjustment made by the revenue on account of administrative support services segment deserves to be deleted since services rendered are in nature of intra group services and not stewardship activity.
ITAT Delhi invalidated a reassessment under Sections 144/147, citing mechanical approval by authorities and incorrect statutory references. The ruling reinforces that higher authorities must apply proper legal mind when granting sanction under Section 151.
ITAT Delhi remitted a case where CIT(A) upheld additions without examining available evidence. The ruling reinforces that authorities must fully consider documents and explanations before confirming unexplained investments.
