The ITAT Delhi invalidated reassessment proceedings because the Section 148 notice was issued two days prior to obtaining the mandatory statutory sanction under Section 151 from the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal held that obtaining the requisite approval is a precondition for valid reopening, and issuing the notice before approval renders the entire action void ab initio.
The ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 56(2)(viib) addition, ruling that the CIT(A) acted improperly by selectively accepting valuation evidence for one issue (Sec. 68) but rejecting it for the share premium issue. The matter was remanded for a fresh review of the valuation evidence, establishing that all relevant material must be considered fairly.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that External Development Charges (EDC) paid by a real estate developer to HUDA are statutory government levies, not payments for the use of land. Following High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 194I (TDS on rent) is not applicable to EDC payments.
ITAT Delhi held that payments received by a US company for software licensing and support services cannot be treated as royalty or fees for technical services. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, such income was classified as business profits and held non-taxable under the India-USA DTAA.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the surcharge rate on the residual income of a trust must be restricted to 15%, not 37%. This decision follows the principle that the surcharge rate is governed by the Finance Act provisions, even if the base tax rate is the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR).
The ITAT upheld the classification of a Rs.5 crore loss on the sale of shares as a capital loss, not a business loss, because the NBFC consistently held the shares as non-current investments for over three years. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee’s accounting treatment and the mandated sale under Supreme Court directions confirmed the investment motive.
The Tribunal ruled that the lease rentals received by Irish residents were exempt from tax in India under Article 8 of the treaty, following precedent on operating leases. The ruling affirms that the DTAA explicitly covers the rental of aircraft (including helicopters) in international traffic.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) issued by Mauritius is sufficient proof of residency to claim benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s attempt to deny treaty protection based on vague allegations of the assessee being a paper/shell company.
Assessments framed under Section 153A based on mechanical approval under Section 153D were invalid in law as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) had accorded omnibus and perfunctory approval to multiple draft assessment orders without application of mind, thereby vitiating the assessments.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs.20.33 crore penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify exact charge: concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Ruling reinforces that an ambiguous, omnibus notice is a jurisdictional defect that vitiates penalty, even if assessment order records satisfaction.
