ITAT deleted a Rs.54.85 crore tax addition, holding that make available clause of the India’s DTAA was not satisfied because routine IT support did not enable Indian entity to apply technology without provider’s ongoing reliance. A key takeaway is that mere recurring service provision, even with technical input, does not constitute make available of know-how.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid where AO recorded a vague, consolidated satisfaction note without linking seized material to specific assessment years.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of Sunita Salhotra, quashing the Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 as barred by the statutory limitation period that expired on March 31, 2022. The Tribunal relied on the Revenue’s concession in the Supreme Court’s Rajiv Bansal case regarding notices issued for this AY on or after April 1, 2021.
Dismissing Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee’s ₹1.9 crore FDR was a renewal of an earlier deposit used as bank guarantee security and not a new unexplained investment under Section 69.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2015-16 due to the tax effect falling below the CBDT’s prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lacs. For AY 2020-21, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of additions for dies for new model development and productivity maintenance expenditure based on judicial consistency.
ITAT Delhi remanded the case for re-examination of foreign remittances from Russia, directing the Assessing Officer to verify if the receipts were genuine trade receivables amid allegations of over-invoiced exports.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (own capital and unsecured loans) to cover the advances given, thus breaking the presumed nexus with interest-bearing funds. This decision reinforces the principle that disallowance is impermissible when the taxpayer possesses adequate non-interest-bearing capital for making advances.
ITAT Delhi upheld reassessment on an individual for AY 2017-18, finding that existence of dual PANs and huge undisclosed demonetization cash deposits constituted tangible material. Tribunal confirmed that sufficiency of material is irrelevant at reopening stage, only prima facie belief matters when notice is issued within four years.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a Rs.5 lakh addition for unrecorded cash sales, ruling that WhatsApp chats are inadmissible as evidence without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The decision establishes that unverified electronic data cannot sustain tax additions, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar.
The ITAT Delhi affirmed that a substantial increase in cash sales during demonetisation is insufficient grounds for a Section 68 addition when books of accounts are not found defective. The ruling confirms that genuine cash sales, properly recorded and matching stock/VAT records, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits.
