The ITAT confirmed the reopening u/s 147/148 beyond the four-year limit was valid, as information from the wife’s assessment about the joint account constituted a new and tangible reason to believe income escaped. Despite upholding the reopening, the Tribunal granted significant taxpayer relief by accepting documentary evidence for property-related transactions and reducing the addition to a minimal amount.
ITAT Delhi partly allowed assessee’s appeal, reducing unexplained income from ₹10.08 crore to ₹2.22 crore and lowering commission on inter-mediated transactions from 3% to a fair 1%, emphasizing verification of cash and cheque entries under same code.
ITAT Delhi held that sales made to Jyoti Products were genuine, supported by ledgers and invoices. The 25% disallowance by the AO under Section 37 was deleted, as Section 37 applies only to business expenditure, not sales transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that the absence of office premises and expatriate activity meant the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal ruled that Revenue cannot rely solely on past orders without verifying current-year facts.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, upheld the addition of ₹19.06 Cr (AY 2011-12) and ₹17.53 Cr (AY 2012-13) to Raheja Developers Limited’s income. The ITAT confirmed the finding that the sale of 22 shops to M/s Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) was a bogus transaction involving a shell company to route the developer’s own unaccounted funds back into its books as sale consideration.
The ITAT granted complete relief, holding that the date of allotment of the new industrial plot, not the date of registration, is the relevant date of purchase for the Section 54G capital gains exemption. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the transfer of industrial property from Delhi (Urban) to Ghaziabad (Non-Urban) qualified for the full shifting exemption.
This landmark ITAT Delhi decision clarifies the scope of Fees for Technical Services, stating that routine repair and replacement work, even with incidental installation by a foreign vendor, does not meet the FTS criteria. The Tribunal deleted the consequential TDS demand, emphasizing that the payment was for commercial profit, supported by precedents on routine maintenance.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the sale of cybersecurity software does not constitute rendering of technical services. Accordingly, such transactions are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ITAT Delhi ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot alter the share valuation method chosen by the assessee under Rule 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Rules. Consequently, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
