The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had incorrectly applied the principle relating to assessments of non-existent entities without examining the factual circumstances of the firm’s conversion into a proprietorship. The matter was remanded for further inquiry.
ITAT sustained the adoption of fair market value under Section 50C after finding that seized cash represented on-money from property transactions. The Tribunal upheld the valuation determined through the DVO process.
The Tribunal ruled that technical lapses in e-verification cannot override a taxpayer’s lawful entitlement to a refund. Once the delay was condoned and the return accepted, denial of the refund was held unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that reopening proceedings cannot survive where the mandatory sanction under Section 151 is not obtained from the prescribed authority. The defect was held to be jurisdictional, rendering the notice invalid.
Delhi ITAT held that donations qualifying under Section 80G do not lose eligibility merely because they form part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure.
The Tribunal ruled that addition of the entire amount of bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure was unwarranted in the facts of the case. It reaffirmed that only the estimated profit arising from such purchases should be brought to tax.
Delhi ITAT ruled that delayed deposit of employees’ PF/ESI contributions attracts disallowance under Section 36(1)(va). The decision reinforces that such adjustments are permissible during summary processing of returns.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of a ₹10 lakh deduction after the recipient political party informed the tax authorities that it had not received the contribution. The ruling emphasises that taxpayers must establish the genuineness of donations claimed under Section 80GGC.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the CIT(A) cannot reclassify an addition under a different provision of the Income-tax Act without issuing a specific notice to the taxpayer. The decision reinforces the limits of appellate powers and upholds principles of natural justice.
The Delhi ITAT held that additions made on transactions unrelated to the reasons recorded for reopening were beyond the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction. The reassessment addition was therefore deleted.
