ITAT Delhi rules Section 148 notice invalid as escaped income not represented in an ‘asset’; reassessment quashed for being time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
TAT Delhi rules that deletion of unsecured loan additions under Section 68 is procedurally flawed if AO is denied opportunity to verify fresh evidence. Matter remanded for de novo examination.
The ITAT ruled that crore cash found in a locker during a search was not “unexplained money” because the assessee immediately explained the source as accumulated speculative business income and offered it to tax. The Tribunal held that a disclosed source, even if unrecorded, cannot be forcefully converted into unexplained income.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment order as void because the final assessment was completed by an Income Tax Officer (Ward-2) who lacked jurisdiction, while the proceedings were initiated by another officer (Ward-3). The Tribunal, citing the Allahabad High Court, ruled that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by participation.
This decision strengthens the protection against time-barred reassessment, emphasizing that the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) applies only if the escaped income is factually above ₹50 lakh. The ITAT confirmed the reassessment was invalid as the AO’s final order confirmed the escaped income was much lower than the extended limit required for reopening
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of a RS.4 crore addition made under Section 68 against Livros Publishing Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the share application money received through banking channels from a listed NBFC.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that losses of Rs.18.6 crore incurred by Fiem Industries Ltd. on target-redemption forward contracts to hedge export receivables were genuine business losses, not speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
The ITAT Delhi invalidated the reassessment proceedings against Huawei International, a Singapore resident, for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s attempt to investigate offshore software receipts, based merely.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a consultancy company with zero turnover could deduct necessary expenses, allowing the full Rs.8.66 lakh security charge as an establishment cost.
