The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and undated draft agreement seized from a third party cannot justify an addition for unexplained investment without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued after three years was time-barred under section 149. Since the ₹50 lakh exception did not apply, the reassessment was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal by holding that interest incurred on borrowings used for project development must be capitalised. Absence of evidence showing alternative use of funds justified capitalization.
Delhi ITAT ruled that assessments for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 under section 153C were invalid as the statutory block period starts from the satisfaction note date, not the original search.
The Tribunal held that while arbitrary disallowances are not sustainable, inadequate substantiation justifies estimation. Disallowances were restricted to 50% to balance fairness and compliance.
The Tribunal struck down reopening where reasons conflicted and rested solely on AIR cash-deposit data. The key takeaway is that reassessment needs a clear, reasoned nexus.
The ruling set aside a large AMP adjustment after finding that commission paid to distributors could not be recharacterized as marketing expenditure. Consistency with prior years played a decisive role in deleting the adjustment.
Noting that exemption was allowed in multiple subsequent years on identical facts, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s stand. The addition and denial of exemption were accordingly set aside.
