The core issue was the disallowance of Rs.169 Cr in Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC), treated as capital expenditure for an enduring benefit. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that routine, recurring expenses like porting charges and handset subsidies in the telecom sector are revenue in nature and fully deductible under S 37(1).
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.1.89 Cr, which the AO treated as a donation to other trusts and deemed income under S 11(3). The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that payments made to other NGOs for executing charitable projects under the Trust’s supervision and control constitute genuine application of income, not donation.
The central issue was the validity of a reassessment that led to additions for bogus purchases and unexplained cash. The ITAT confirmed the entire reassessment was void because the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under S 143(2), affirming the deletion of all additions.
The case addressed the disallowance of Rs.2.21 Cr on dealer foreign tour expenses, which the AO questioned for lack of formal agreements. The ITAT confirmed the deletion of the addition, ruling the expenses were genuine business promotion and commercially expedient under S 37(1) particularly since a similar scheme was accepted for the holding company.
The case addressed a Rs.605 Cr addition under Section 68 for alleged bogus sales, where the AO didn’t reject the books. The ITAT remanded the matter, directing the AO to recompute income by applying the average three-year Gross Profit rate on sales, establishing that entire sales cannot be taxed as unexplained credits when books aren’t rejected.
ITAT Delhi quashed a reassessment, ruling that jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a Section 148 notice after CBDT notification assigned exclusive power to NFAC under Section 151A. The key takeaway is that post-March 29, 2022, only NFAC can validly initiate reassessment proceedings under faceless regime.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed an appeal, restricting a Rs. 10 lakh cash deposit addition to 1 lakh after the assessee, a salaried individual, explained the source as family savings from disclosed income. The Tribunal used a reasonable estimate approach, finding neither the assessee’s full explanation nor the Revenue’s complete rejection of evidence to be fully warranted, granting Rs. 9 lakh relief.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
The Delhi ITAT invalidated a reassessment, ruling the AO failed to establish independent ‘reason to believe’ and merely borrowed satisfaction from an Investigation Wing report without tangible material or a live link to the assessee’s income. This judgment establishes that reassessment cannot be based solely on second-hand, non-incriminating information from a third-party search.
in a colourful observation, the Tribunal compared Juniper’s interlinked trading and service activities to the egg-or-chicken story, holding entity-level TNMM appropriate and deleting the TP addition.
