ITAT Delhi held that notional interest on business advances cannot be taxed without actual accrual or receipt of income. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the advances were made during the ordinary course of business.
ITAT Delhi deleted a Rs. 50 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the investor company had directly responded to notices and furnished supporting documents. The Tribunal held that the identity, genuineness, and source of investment were adequately proved.
The Tribunal restored issues relating to comparable company margins and working capital adjustment after finding that the assessee’s submissions required verification. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT Delhi upheld addition of Rs. 2.78 crore after finding that the assessee had voluntarily admitted undisclosed stock during survey and post-survey proceedings. The Tribunal held that later retraction without supporting evidence could not displace signed statements and inventory records.
The ITAT examined additions based on alleged undisclosed sales and gross profit estimation after a search operation. The Tribunal held that industry-average GP rate should be adopted instead of the higher rate applied by the Assessing Officer and directed recomputation of income accordingly.
Delhi ITAT Restricts Corporate Guarantee Fee to 0.30% After Finding Actual Interest Saving Was Only 0.60%; Holds TP Adjustment Must Reflect Real Benefit From Corporate Guarantee.
ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the Revenue was inadmissible in law. The Tribunal observed that mandatory procedures relating to digital evidence handling and chain of custody were not properly followed.
The case involved additions based on seized diaries, alleged cash sales, and estimated profits. The ITAT partly accepted the assessee’s arguments and directed adoption of a revised industry GP rate for computing taxable income.
The Tribunal deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after substantially deleting the unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68. It held that penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition is largely removed and the remaining amount is estimated.
ITAT Delhi held that additions based on documents seized from a third party cannot be made under Section 143(3) without invoking reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the assessment for non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards.
