ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the assessment under Section 153C was time-barred because the block period must be calculated from the date the Assessing Officer (AO) of the non-searched person received the seized material. The ruling confirms that the date of the original search is irrelevant for non-searched persons.
ITAT Delhi ruled that Section 50C, which allows revaluing property based on circle rates, applies only to the seller in a transfer, not the buyer in a slump sale governed by Section 50B. The Tribunal held that goodwill is depreciable, but its value must be verified by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).
ITAT Delhi deleted a penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) against a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) for alleged non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice.1 The court ruled that service of notice, not mere issuance, is mandatory, and lacking proof of service on the UK resident constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi dismissed cross-appeals from the assessee and Revenue, citing the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The ruling reaffirms that Section 238 of the IBC has an overriding effect on the Income-tax Act, mandating all tax claims be lodged with the Resolution Professional.
ITAT Delhi set aside 43 search assessments involving a business group and its associates, ruling that the mass approvals granted under Section 153D were invalid.1 The Tribunal held that approving 23 draft orders within 24 hours without proper review constitutes a mechanical, non-judicial exercise of power.
Tribunal held that charitable or religious trusts that have surrendered their registration and do not claim benefits under Section 11 are to be taxed at normal slab rates applicable to AOPs, not at the maximum marginal rate. The ruling relied on CBDT Circular No. 320 of 1982.
ITAT Delhi held that the ₹33.12 crore received by a co-founder to settle disputes and relinquish the right to sue for promised equity is a non-taxable capital receipt. The court ruled the payment wasn’t salary, business income, or capital gains, as the ‘right to sue’ isn’t a transferable capital asset.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting additions for AY 2013–14, ruling that year fell outside six-year block under Section 153C based on satisfaction date in FY 2021–22.
In the case of Deepak Jain v. Income Tax Department, the ITAT Delhi held that the BMA cannot be applied to foreign companies and bank accounts that ceased to exist before 1 July 2015, and that once proceedings were pursued under the IT Act rather than the BMA, the revenue may not shift to BMA under doctrine of election.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
