The Delhi ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A are invalid when the Assessing Officer does not identify the precise statutory clause for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal ruled that such omission goes to the root of jurisdiction.
Delhi ITAT ruled that only unique solar days of employee presence, and not cumulative man-days, should be considered for determining Service PE under the India-US DTAA. Since the assessee’s employees stayed only 72 unique days in India, no PE existed and Section 44BB taxation was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(x) could not be applied to property transactions relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 because the provision became effective only from AY 2018-19. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration.
ITAT Delhi held that lawful TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the Assessing Officer overlooked an earlier rectification order under Section 154. The Tribunal directed grant of TDS credit and deletion of interest under Sections 234A and 234B.
Tribunal dismissed a Revenue appeal after finding that additions were made solely on basis of entries in a seized Excel file. It held that presumptions and unverified notings cannot replace concrete evidence.
The ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were properly documented and routed through banking channels. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the transactions represented unaccounted income.
Delhi ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to alleged bogus share capital.
Delhi ITAT held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying year-wise incriminating material is invalid under Section 153C. The Tribunal consequently quashed all related assessments.
Delhi ITAT held that unsecured loans already forfeited and offered to tax in a subsequent assessment year cannot again be taxed under Section 68 in the year of receipt. The Tribunal ruled that such action would result in impermissible double taxation.
Delhi ITAT held that notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 without digital signatures are invalid in e-proceedings. The Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment as void ab initio.
