Bain & Company Vs D/ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi arose from a final assessment order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a foreign company […]
ITAT Delhi held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act allowed since assessee is able to prove the nature of land as agricultural land based on revenue records and income tax return, wherein, income accepted as agricultural income.
ITAT Delhi upheld CIT(A) s order holding that reassessment under Section 153A cannot stand without incriminating material seized from the assessee. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that interest awarded under Section 28 is an accretion to compensation and cannot be taxed as income from other sources. The appeal was allowed following Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Delhi held that recording a single satisfaction note for multiple assessment years violates Section 153C requirements. As no year-specific incriminating material was identified, the assessments were quashed along with the related penalty.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed as without jurisdiction since revisionary proceedings under section 263 on the same issue was already dropped.
The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot automatically follow. The Revenue must independently prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that where the AO had examined and accepted exemption on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that deposits received from members of a registered cooperative society cannot be treated as unexplained credits when supported by books and member-wise records.
The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that expenses already disallowed by the assessee were again disallowed during processing, resulting in double addition. The issue was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
