ITAT confirmed GP and unsecured loan additions but deleted expense disallowances, ruling that rebates and receipt-backed rent are valid business expenses without a proven personal element.
ITAT Delhi upholds the Rs. 1 crore addition (u/s 68) confirmed by CIT(A), dismissing the assessees appeal due to its repeated failure to produce evidence for the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the purported loan. No evidence, no relief.
ITAT Delhi upholds the quashing of s. 153C assessment for AY 2012-13, ruling it’s beyond the 10-year block of limitation as per s. 153A/C and Delhi High Court precedent in Ojjus Medicare.
ITAT Delhi rules wife not liable to prove husband and sons’ source of funds for property purchase. Addition of Rs.1.10 Cr u/s 69 quashed as family funds explained.
Sanjay Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee challenged assessments framed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) on the ground that mandatory approval u/s 153D was granted mechanically without proper application of mind. AO had made an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69, which was confirmed by CIT(A)-24, New Delhi vide order dated 28.02.2025. Before Tribunal, […]
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained on the basis of a PAN mismatch alone, especially when the assessee, an individual with no business activity, was wrongly linked to a corporate entity.
ITAT upheld the deletion of disallowance on deduction u/s 80IA for ground handling profits at DIAL and CIAL. Citing SC precedent (Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.),
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal, confirming deletion of a Rs. 25 crore penalty imposed under Section 271D. Tribunal ruled that penalty, based solely on a seized MOU and assumptions without proof of cash movement, was not legally sustainable.
ITAT Delhi quashes Rs.8.16 crore addition on share capital and commission, emphasizing that mere suspicion without evidence cannot justify tax additions. Investor genuineness and banking records were upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s suspicion, without material evidence, was insufficient to prove the non-genuineness of a partner’s capital contribution. This case clarifies the legal burden of proof under the Income Tax Act.
