The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the AO failed to record any allegation of the assessee’s failure to disclose material facts. The ruling reaffirms that reopening beyond four years requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 147.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of stale information results into change of opinion and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and reopening is quashed.
The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Delhi emphasized that Revenue must present convincing evidence of fraud or economic substance absence to deny DTAA benefits, following Delhi HC guidance in Tiger Global International.
Gagil FDI Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The case concerns Gagil FDI Limited, a company incorporated in Cyprus, which appealed against an assessment order dated 29 April 2024 for the assessment year 2021–22 under Sections 143(3) and 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary dispute relates to whether the assessee was entitled to […]
DCIT Vs Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) No Incriminating Evidence, Only Excel — ITAT Deletes ₹25 Cr Addition in Moser Baer Group Case Search was conducted on the Moser Baer Group, covering Assessee’s premises. During search, an Excel sheet titled “Funds Position” was found on a group employee’s laptop, showing loan entries. […]
ITAT Delhi held aircraft lease between Irish lessor and IndiGo as operating lease, not taxable in India under Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA.
The ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material found during search and set aside assessments for AYs 2013–14 and 2014–15.
Delhi ITAT held that cash credits recorded in a cash book attract Section 68 even under presumptive taxation. The Tribunal sustained ₹78 lakh addition but deleted profit addition.
The Tribunal confirmed that employees’ contributions to EPF and ESIC deposited after the statutory due dates are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va). The assessee’s appeal was dismissed as the delay was not condonable.
