The ITAT struck down the additions, observing that the AO’s jurisdiction was potentially vitiated by a mechanical, consolidated approval for reopening, and the additions themselves relied solely on an uncorroborated statement and rough papers. The ruling confirms that unverified, rough documents lack sufficient evidentiary value to sustain income additions.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the reassessment was invalid because the issue of setting off prior-year speculative losses was already examined in the original scrutiny assessment. The quashing relied on the “change of opinion” doctrine, as the AO used no new tangible material to reopen the case.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening beyond four years requires sanction from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Approval taken from the Joint Commissioner rendered the reassessment invalid.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order under Section 154, holding that a debatable issue regarding provision for construction expenses is not a “mistake apparent from record.” The ruling reinforces that Section 154 cannot be used to make additions that require a long-drawn process of reasoning or legal interpretation.
The ITAT followed its earlier ruling for the German financial institution, confirming that the management/processing fee was a component of the loan financing and not a fee for technical services. The decision directed the deletion of the entire addition, reinforcing that the taxability of fees must be determined based on their underlying nature and link to the principal loan.
The Tribunal ruled that the cross-charged fee for use of third-party software does not qualify as Royalty as the payment is for a copyrighted article and not the transfer of copyright rights. This decision deletes a significant addition, reaffirming that the make available clause in the DTAA was not satisfied.
The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)’s pragmatic decision to restrict an addition of ₹8.21 crore for unexplained cash deposits to a 5% profit margin on the total deposits. This estimation was deemed reasonable, considering the nature of the assessee’s pottery trading business where full documentation was absent, balancing commercial reality with revenue protection.
A reassessment order was challenged because the Section 148 notice was issued in the name of the assessee who had died a year earlier. The ITAT ruled that a notice issued to a deceased or non-existent person is non est in law, deeming the assumption of jurisdiction and the entire reassessment process void ab initio.
Delhi ITAT directed the AO to recompute disallowance under Section 14A as per the amended Rule 8D (2016), limiting it to 1 % of investments yielding exempt income. Other Revenue grounds, including 80-IA and leave-encashment, were dismissed.
ITAT Delhi ruled that WhatsApp chats recovered during a search, if corroborated by context and left unrebutted by the assessee, create a statutory presumption of correctness under Section 292C, leading to a sustained addition of ₹9 lakh as unexplained money. The Tribunal also directed the allowance of an 80TTA deduction claim for the abated assessment year (AY 2018-19).
