The Tribunal rejected appeals filed by the assessee s father despite claims that the assessee was untraceable. It clarified that absence of the assessee does not authorize relatives to file appeals. Legal standing is mandatory for invoking appellate jurisdiction.
The tribunal set aside the assessment after finding that faceless assessment proceedings were initiated before the scheme was formally notified, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the rejection of 12A registration, holding that the applicant should be given another opportunity to submit documents proving the genuineness of charitable activities.
ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained without incriminating material discovered during a search, leading to deletion of major additions and dismissal of Revenue appeals.
The ITAT held that provision for dealer incentives under a sales promotion scheme was based on a scientific method and not a contingent liability. The disallowance made by the tax authorities was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued under Section 148 in the name of a company that had already amalgamated are invalid. The reassessment orders were quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that payments made by an employees’ welfare society to members, including death claims and retirement benefits, must be set off against taxable interest income before computing taxable income.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings for a period prior to the approval of an NCLT resolution plan cannot be sustained. It held that once the resolution plan is approved, tax demands relating to earlier periods cannot continue against the corporate debtor.
ITAT ruled that jurisdiction to reopen assessment arises only when a valid notice is issued to a living person or legal representative. Since the notice was issued to a deceased assessee, the reassessment order was declared illegal.
ITAT Delhi held that gift of a property to wife specially when she is a co-sharer in the property cannot be considered to be a colourable device and camouflage transaction to taint claim of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 54F erroneously disallowed.
