Review of ITAT Delhi’s decision in ITO Vs Soumya Tradecom Pvt Ltd case, highlighting lack of valid approval in reassessment proceedings. Key takeaways.
ITAT Delhi held that addition primarily on the basis of statements alone and no other corroborative evidence and that too without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the said persons is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi rules no addition under Section 68 if the amount isn’t in books of account. Balaji Tirupati Buildcon Ltd vs ITO case examined in-depth.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act based on seized dumb documents found in the premises of third party is unsustainable in law as the seized documents are merely loose sheets not forming part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of cash credits in various bank accounts deleted by CIT(A) without verifying the persons/firm/Companies from whom the alleged amount has been credited is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter resorted to the file of AO.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of action u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of shortfall in TDS on year end provisions reported in Form 3CD of the assessee cannot be faulted. Accordingly, matter remanded to AO.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 towards unsecured loan amount unjustified as identity and creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transaction duly proved by way of documentary evidences.
ITAT Delhi held that the expenditure not claimed cannot be disallowed while determining the taxable income. Hence, disallowance of contingent liability as expenditure unjustified as the same was never claimed as expenditure for the purpose of determining total income.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation on Solar Power Plant installed on office building which is part of factory and electricity so generated is used for factory only is allowable as per provision of law.
ITAT Delhi ruling on ACIT vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd. case. Expenditure to avoid reputation damage and litigation costs allowed as valid business expense under Section 37 of Income Tax Act.
