ITO Vs Oval Investment Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) AIS/Form 10DB Mismatch Not Conclusive- Share & F&O Profits Taxable Only in Real Owner’s Hands- Commission Agent Cannot Be Taxed on Principal’s Trading Income dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of additions aggregating to ₹4.13 crore, holding that share trading, F&O and dividend income belonged to the […]
The issue was whether entire alleged bogus purchases should be added as income after a search assessment. The Tribunal held that where consumption and records are not disputed, only the profit element can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
The Tribunal held that deciding an appeal on merits without granting an effective hearing breaches section 250(2) and natural justice. Repeated adjournments alone cannot justify ex-parte disposal, especially in search-based estimation cases.
Revenue argued no separate satisfaction was needed as the searched and other person had the same AO. ITAT rejected this, holding that since AOs were different on the date of satisfaction, the defect was fatal.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when sanction under section 151 was taken from the wrong authority. The Tribunal held that approval by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/PDG is a fatal jurisdictional defect, invalidating the entire reassessment.
The issue was whether reopening could be done when a jointly owned property exceeds ₹50 lakh in total value. The Tribunal held that only the assessee’s share counts; if it is below ₹50 lakh, reopening beyond three years is without jurisdiction.
Revenue treated the ARC’s discounted purchase of debt as a benefit to the borrower. ITAT ruled that assignment at a discount does not reduce the borrower’s obligation and, absent remission or prior allowance, no income arises under section 41(1).
The assessee sought to contest an EPF/ESI disallowance arising only from CPC processing. ITAT ruled that issues from 143(1) must be challenged independently, not through a 143(3) appeal.
The assessee explained that income and TDS were recognized in different financial years. ITAT restored the matter for limited verification and barred automatic taxation.
The issue was whether filing ITR-7 instead of ITR-5 justified blanket disallowance of expenses. ITAT held that wrong ITR selection is a procedural lapse and cannot wipe out genuine expenditure.
