Delhi ITAT held that before the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under Section 54 could be claimed for investment in more than one residential house. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance relating to the second property purchase.
Delhi ITAT restored ₹6.30 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the Mauritius investor’s financial statements were unsigned and unauthenticated. The Tribunal held that incomplete documents cannot establish identity, creditworthiness or genuineness of transactions.
Delhi ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot make additions beyond the specific issues remanded by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263. Fresh additions unrelated to the revision directions were therefore rightly deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record how the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reopening for violating the first proviso to Section 147.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detailed assessment scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined all major issues through extensive enquiries and documentation.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 143(3) despite the case being covered under the block assessment provisions of Section 153C. ITAT reaffirmed that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by regular scrutiny proceedings.
Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed bank accounts with explained credits. The Tribunal deleted ₹3.29 crore addition for lack of incriminating material.
Delhi ITAT held that cancellation of GST registration and non-response from suppliers alone cannot justify treating entire purchases as bogus. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% profit element, observing that sales and books of account were not rejected.
The Delhi ITAT held that large cash deposits and investigation wing information alone do not create valid reason to believe for reopening assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on suspicion and borrowed satisfaction is invalid in law.
The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction under Section 153C is not a mechanical exercise and must clearly establish the relevance of seized material to the assessee’s income.
