ITAT Delhi allowed Ekalavya Gift Galleries Pvt. Ltd.’s appeals, holding that share capital and premium received from investors were properly explained and not taxable under section 68.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹1.11 crore addition, holding that ordinary dunnage used by Central Warehousing Corporation is a revenue expense, following rulings from earlier years.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot discard a registered valuer’s report without referring the matter to a Departmental Valuation Officer. The AO’s addition was set aside, and the fair market value must be recomputed based on the valuer’s report.
The Tribunal found that CAM payments are contractual in nature and not for use of property, making 2% TDS deduction under Section 194C appropriate.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a reassessment notice served under Section 148 on a foreign FPI (Singapore company) after its formal dissolution is void ab initio. This decision confirms that proceedings against a non-existent entity, even if served shortly after winding up, are invalid and cannot be cured by Section 292B.
The ITAT Delhi deleted additions made under Section 153A for unabated/completed assessment years (AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17) following a search. The ruling strictly applied the Supreme Court’s mandate in Abhisar Buildwell that additions in completed years require the finding of incriminating material during the search.
Delhi ITAT held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made without Assessing Officer recording satisfaction about correctness of assessee’s claim. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, ₹25.06 lakh disallowance was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that trade scheme payment to sales promoters whether pure reimbursement or not needs proper verification and since AO granted relief without proper verification and application of mind, PCIT rightly invoked revisionary proceedings u/s. 263.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an addition for alleged penny stock LTCG under Section 68, ruling that an assessment for an unabated year under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search. Since the addition was based on general analysis, not seized documents, the Revenues appeal was dismissed. The key takeaway affirms the Supreme Courts mandate that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without specific incriminating evidence.
The Tribunal held that income declared under Sections 44AE and 44AD by a transport HUF owning 10 trucks was valid. Additions for alleged profit diversion were deleted as the AO’s suspicion of tax evasion lacked evidence.
