ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹45 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the assessee had furnished complete details of investor companies and share allotment. The Tribunal held that verified share application money could not be treated as unexplained cash credit.
ITAT Delhi restored a Section 69A addition after holding that the assessee failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that the seized cash was meant for inter-branch transfer. The Tribunal found the explanation unsupported and inconsistent with available records.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made without proving cessation of liability. The Tribunal found that family loans continued to remain payable and were merely reclassified in the capital account.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the department failed to obtain the prescribed approval, the assessment was quashed as invalid in law.
The ITAT Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 and judicial precedents on jurisdictional defects.
Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had wrongly recharacterised Boeing India Defense Private Limited as a full-risk service provider despite the Associated Enterprise (AE) assuming the entire contractual and operational risks relating to defence support services rendered to the Indian Air Force (IAF).
Assessee argued that conclusions drawn from a 2005 survey on liaison offices could not be applied mechanically to later branch office structure. ITAT directed fresh examination of branch office’s actual functions and activities.
ITAT Delhi held that the Revenue’s appeal was not maintainable after excluding Education Cess from tax effect computation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect fell below the CBDT threshold limit of Rs.60 lakh.
ITAT Delhi held that a satisfaction note under Section 153C must clearly state how seized material bears on the assessee’s income determination. The Tribunal quashed the assessments after finding the statutory requirement was not properly recorded.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that the statutory conditions under Section 153C were not properly satisfied. It held that defective recording of satisfaction vitiated the entire proceedings against the third party assessee.
