Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(4) of the India-Norway DTAA (7.5% presumptive tax on gross receipts), rejecting the Assessing Officer’s attempt to tax it under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer’s mechanical application of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance was invalid without recording proper satisfaction. The Tribunal directed that only net interest (interest paid less interest earned) and only those investments that yielded exempt income should be considered for re-computation, upholding the assessee’s legal objections.
ITAT Delhi ruled AO cannot use Section 154 to disallow ESI/PF deduction based on the later Supreme Court Checkmate judgment, as the issue was previously debatable.
Drawing on precedents, the ITAT held that a mandatory Section 153D approval for search assessments must be proven. The assessment order was set aside because the Department could not locate or produce the JCIT’s prior approval and satisfaction note after eight years.
The ITAT Delhi heard an appeal from Kamal Kant, whose set-off of non-speculative business losses from Futures & Options (F&O) against Capital Gains income was disallowed by the tax authorities. Citing Section 71(2) of the Income-tax Act and judicial precedent, the ITAT found the set-off permissible.
DCIT Vs Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Project Terminated, Shares Worth Zero – ITAT Allows ₹68 Cr Capital Loss & Strikes Down 68 Addition A 90MW hydropower project was allotted by the Himachal Pradesh Govt. to HPPPL in 2009, which paid ₹18 Cr upfront fees. A project company MHEPCL was formed, shares were moved […]
The ITAT Delhi fully dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming the deletion of both the Rs.8.09 Cr peak credit addition and the Rs.49.54 Lakh interest disallowance after the assessee proved the sufficiency of own capital and commercial expediency. Consequently, the assessee’s cross-objection against the validity of the reassessment was dismissed as infructuous, reinforcing that no addition can be sustained without adequate proof of unexplained income.
The ITAT struck down the Rs. 8.19 crore addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) by ignoring the assessee’s share valuation based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The decision affirms that the AO lacks the authority to substitute their own value when a recognized method under Rule is used, and the underlying asset valuation is further corroborated by a higher DVO valuation.
The Tribunal held that a mechanical, same-day approval for 43 cases under Section 153D vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed for lack of valid approval, emphasizing the necessity of independent application of mind by the approving authority.
The ITAT instantly dismissed the Revenues appeal because it only challenged the merits of additions, not the CIT(A)s core finding that the reassessment notice was time-barred. When the foundation of the reassessment is quashed and that ruling isnt appealed, all subsequent additions automatically collapse.
