ITAT Delhi held that higher TDS under Section 206AA applied where the seller’s PAN was not linked with Aadhaar. However, the Tribunal observed that the tax department should have incorporated system alerts for inoperative PANs and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of addition made under Section 69A after finding that the assessee produced complete documentary evidence for purchase and sale of LDPL shares. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion and investigation reports alone cannot override genuine DEMAT, bank and broker records.
ITAT Delhi deleted transfer pricing adjustments after holding that retail and after-sales businesses could not be compared with wholesale trading to OEMs. The Tribunal ruled that comparables must satisfy functional and market similarity under Rule 10B(2).
ITAT Delhi noted that confirmations from the company and broker regarding share transactions were available but not adequately considered by the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded for denovo assessment.
The ITAT held that credits received in the assessee’s bank account were repayments of earlier advances and not unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the transactions were supported by bank records and financial documents.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already made additions on the exact issue for which reassessment was reopened. The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty rate under applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court ruling that DDT is, in substance, a tax on shareholder dividend income.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Tribunal noted the assessee’s contention that only his share in jointly owned properties could be taxed instead of the entire transaction value. It directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter on merits after considering documentary evidence.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the holding period for capital gains purposes began from the date of full payment and transfer of possession under the agreement to sell, not the later registration date. The property was therefore treated as a long-term capital asset.
