ITAT Delhi held that a donor cannot be denied deduction merely because the political party failed to record the donation. Verified payment through bank qualifies for 80GGC relief.
ITAT ruled that taxing cash deposits as unexplained credit under Section 68 when underlying sales are already accepted by AO and VAT authorities amounts to illegal double taxation. Decision confirmed that source of demonetised currency deposits was clearly traceable to regular business receipts.
The Delhi ITAT restored a reassessment appeal to the CIT(A) because evidence was rejected only for lack of a formal Rule 46A application. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence if the assessee files a proper application within a reasonable time.
The Delhi ITAT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the intimation issued on February 27, 2023, was invalid as the legal deadline expired on December 31, 2022. Once the mandatory limitation period expires, the tax authority loses jurisdiction.
An assessment adding ₹17.62 lakh was annulled as the income was below ₹50 lakh, limiting the period to three years under Section 149(1)(a). The Tribunal held the notice was time-barred as it was reissued after the statutory period’s surviving time of one day expired.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenues appeal, ruling that restrictions on set-off of carried-forward losses under Section 79 apply only in the year the set-off is claimed, not the year the loss is incurred and carried forward. The ruling confirmed that the AO erred in denying the carry forward of current year losses for subsequent years.
The Tribunal condoned a 563-day delay in filing appeal caused by frequent changes in management and poor communication in a co-operative bank. It held that negligence of officials should not override substantive justice and remanded the case for fresh adjudication by CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s mechanical application of Rule 8D without specific satisfaction was invalid. Since no new investments were made and own funds exceeded investments, disallowance was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi deleted the TDS demand under Section 194-I, confirming that the obligation to deduct tax on lease rent paid to NOIDA Authority applies prospectively from 16.02.2017. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal ruled the real estate firm was not an assessee-in-default for payments made in FY 2011-12.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that the reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of the erstwhile amalgamating company were void ab initio. The Tribunal ruled that since the amalgamation was duly communicated to the Assessing Officer before the assessment, the notice issued to the non-existent entity was invalid in law.
