ITAT Delhi held that reassessment based solely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry is invalid. The ruling emphasizes that borrowed satisfaction cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
The Tribunal emphasized that once sales are entered in regular books and supported by stock records, the burden shifts to the Revenue to prove them false. In the absence of such proof, Section 68 could not be invoked.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period could not be fully treated as unexplained money when supported by sales records and books of account. However, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the abnormal increase in cash sales before demonetization, the Tribunal sustained only a lump-sum addition of ₹10 lakh. The ruling emphasizes balanced evaluation of evidence in demonetization-related assessments.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be based on the same material already examined during a completed Section 153C assessment. The ruling emphasizes that fresh tangible material is necessary for valid reopening.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note failed to identify the documents allegedly found during the search or their connection to the taxpayer. The ruling confirms that vague references to seized material are insufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that the Delhi Assessing Officer could not legally assess the taxpayer when jurisdiction continued to remain with Mumbai authorities. The decision underscores that jurisdiction cannot shift without following statutory procedures.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish escaped income of ₹50 lakh or more, a prerequisite for extending the assessment period beyond six years. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory thresholds for extended reassessment.
ITAT Delhi held that protective additions cannot survive when the same income has already been assessed substantively in the hands of the real beneficiaries. The key takeaway is that the Revenue cannot tax identical income twice in different hands.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). The ruling reiterates that an ambiguous penalty notice can invalidate penalty proceedings.
ITAT held that reimbursement of salary costs of seconded employees could not be treated as Fees for Technical Services where the Indian company exercised exclusive control and supervision. The Tribunal found a clear employer-employee relationship during the secondment period and deleted the addition.
