ITAT Delhi held that reasons recorded for exercising the jurisdiction is plagued with several defects of critical nature. Thus, due to lack of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act reassessment proceedings held as bad-in-law.
ITAT Delhi held that error of bringing an amount of Rs.12,10,692/- to tax instead of the undisclosed amount of Rs.27,00,00,000/- is assessment made without proper enquiry and hence assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue so revision order u/s. 263 sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that bandwidth charges remitted by the assessee to foreign telecom service providers cannot be treated as royalty either under the applicable treaty provisions or u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, assessee not required to deduct tax at source.
ITAT Delhi held that it is proved that assessee doesn’t have any permanent establishment in India, during the year under consideration, accordingly, receipts classifiable as business income cannot be taxed in India.
Merely relying on the statement of a third party without any corroborating evidence could not justify income tax additions. In the absence of incriminating material found during a search, AO could not enhance the taxable income in proceedings under section 153A.
Further, revenue also contested that whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the excise duty refund of Rs 1,63,15,661/- as capital receipt, which were earlier treated as revenue receipt, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
ITAT Delhi held that even though assessee is not the owner of the Airport Metro Express Line Project it has right to collect fare from commercial operations. Thus, depreciation is eligible on such intangible assets as per provisions of section 32(1)(ii).
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed income merely on the basis of conjectures cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, also held that addition purely based on post-dated cheques cannot be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that mere change of opinion would not confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen proceedings without anything further. Thus, reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that the issuance of notice u/s. 148 based on cryptic reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the Pr.CIT u/s. 151 of the Income Tax Act do not pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Thus, reassessment quashed.
