ITAT Delhi held that the assessees could not substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions underlying the LTCG claims. The additions under Section 68 were sustained after the Tribunal found that the evidence supported the Revenue’s conclusion of accommodation entries.
ITAT Delhi quashed a ₹65 lakh penalty under Section 271D after finding that no assessment was made for the relevant year and no satisfaction was recorded for initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained in such circumstances.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings could be initiated after the NCLT declared a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It held that fresh assessment proceedings during the moratorium period were invalid and quashed the assessment order.
Delhi ITAT held that share premium received by a subsidiary from its holding company could not be taxed under Section 56(2)(viib). The ruling emphasizes that the anti-abuse provision cannot be extended to genuine intra-group capital infusions.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D reflected no proper application of mind and was issued in a mechanical manner. As a result, the assessments framed pursuant to such approval were quashed.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the recorded reasons for reopening were undated and failed to establish compliance with Section 148 requirements. The assessment was quashed as a jurisdictional defect.
The ITAT held that transfer pricing adjustment was not justified where the foreign LLC’s income was already offered to tax in India by the assessee. The Tribunal deleted the TP addition, finding no profit shifting or tax erosion.
ITAT Delhi held that a 22-day delay in filing Form 10-IC could not deprive an eligible company of the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal treated the delay as procedural and directed recomputation at the lower rate.
ITAT Delhi set aside a reassessment after holding that the ACIT lacked jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found that the assessee’s returned income was below the CBDT threshold requiring jurisdiction to remain with the ITO.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 could not be invoked where YEIDA payments were recorded in the books and funded through an RBI-registered NBFC. The ruling emphasizes that explained and documented sources of investment cannot be treated as unexplained investments.
