The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India. The addition of Rs. 99.50 crore was therefore deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that a bad debt deduction cannot be denied once the debt is validly written off in the books of account. The Tribunal ruled that proof of actual irrecoverability was not required in view of CBDT circulars and judicial precedent.
The ITAT Delhi deleted a long-term capital gains addition based on entries in a third-party seized diary. The Tribunal relied on earlier final orders in related cases where the same diary was found to lack evidentiary value.
ITAT Delhi accepted the assessee’s contention that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The ruling restricted the addition to the exempt income of ₹2.63 lakh despite a higher Rule 8D computation.
he Tribunal held that accepted on-money receipts from earlier years could partly explain cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. It granted telescoping relief for 50% of the disputed addition under Section 68.
The ITAT Delhi held that LTCG exemption could not be denied merely because the shares were classified as a penny stock. The addition was deleted as the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to price rigging, entry operators, or manipulation activities.
The Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of ₹2.32 lakh on 40 grams of gold bullion after granting the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to relief considering the prescribed jewellery limits and supporting evidence.
The ITAT Delhi held that an interest-bearing loan can still be taxed as deemed dividend where all statutory conditions under Section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Repayment of the loan did not alter its tax treatment.
The ITAT held that a transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127(2) is invalid if the assessee is not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As a result, notices issued by the transferee officers lacked legal validity and the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the property could not have been transferred without compensating the occupants. The related payments were therefore held deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains purposes.
