The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment notices issued after expiry of the surviving limitation period under the amended reassessment regime were invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reopening proceedings and related penalties for both assessment years.
The Delhi ITAT held that belated filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural lapse and cannot extinguish substantive Foreign Tax Credit rights under sections 90/90A/91 and applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal directed verification and grant of FTC where the form was filed before completion of assessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that levy of penalty under Section 271D requires pending or completed assessment proceedings containing findings on Section 269SS violation. Since no regular assessment was framed, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp messages and digital chats cannot by themselves establish undisclosed cash transactions. The Tribunal deleted additions made solely on presumptions without independent evidence.
Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by prior bank withdrawals. The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must prove cash was spent elsewhere before invoking Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that unrecovered advances made in the ordinary course of business can be allowed as business loss, even if they do not qualify as bad debts under section 36.
The Tribunal held that effective opportunity was not provided before rejecting the applications for registration and approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for reconsideration in accordance with law.
ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not substitute the fair market value of shares without specifically rejecting the assessee’s DCF valuation report. The Tribunal deleted the Rs.4.14 crore addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The ITAT Delhi held that contractual receipts reflected in the PAN of a dissolved partnership firm could not be taxed again when they were already disclosed in the proprietorship concern of the surviving partner. The Tribunal ruled that such addition would amount to double taxation.
The ITAT Delhi held that the upload date of DRP directions on the ITBA portal must be considered for computing limitation under Section 144C(13). Since the final assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed period, the assessment was quashed as time-barred.
