An assessment reopened to tax alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) was declared void ab initio by the ITAT, strictly applying Section 151. The Tribunal held that statutory sanction cannot be bypassed or taken from a non-competent authority, even following the Ashish Agarwal directions, making the entire reassessment jurisdictionally flawed.
The ITAT ruled that CSR expenditure, though disallowed as a business expense, qualifies for deduction under Section 80G if paid to approved entities. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the donations and allow the 80G claim, rejecting the argument that a mandatory statutory expense cannot be a donation.
ITAT Delhi allows Henna Industries’ appeal, deleting a Rs. 9.30 lakh disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1), confirming it was due to a clerical mistake in the tax audit report.
The Revenue argued that interest income from an Associated Enterprise (AE) should be taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate MMR by invoking Article 12(6) of the DTAA} (PE exclusion). The Tribunal upheld the 15% DTAA rate, confirming that since the assessee has no PE in India, the exclusionary clause 12(6) does not apply, and the interest is a debt-claim under Article 12(4).
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the ₹4.17 Crore TDS penalty order was invalid as it was passed over two years after the expiry of the statutory limitation period (June 30, 2014). This ruling reinforces that the limitation clock starts when the AO initiates the penalty in the assessment order.
The Delhi ITAT quashed a ₹42.10 Crore addition made in a Section 153A assessment, confirming that additions cannot be made to completed assessments without incriminating material seized during the search. The ruling follows the binding Supreme Court precedent in Abhisar Buildwell.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding CIT(A)’s deletion of addition from a share sale, ruling the transaction genuine as no evidence proved the shares were ‘penny stock’ or rigged.
The ITAT confirmed the deletion of a ₹72 crore addition made under Section 143(1) by the CPC, which resulted from a tax auditor’s inadvertent reporting error in Form 3CD (using the opening instead of the closing inventory). The ruling established that the CIT(A) can directly verify evidence and grant relief for such genuine clerical mistakes without remanding the case to the AO.
The Tribunal deleted the unexplained investment (Section 69) and cash interest (Section 69A) additions, emphasizing that unsigned, vague slips and digital data, where the parties were not confronted and no independent verification was done, have no evidentiary value in search assessment law. This aligns with Supreme Court rulings on the invalidity of additions based on non-speaking loose sheets.
ITAT Delhi remands trust registration u/s 12A denial after finding the rejection was ex-parte and non-compliance was due to the previous counsel’s failure.
