ITAT Delhi held that compliance with the statutory hierarchy under Section 151 is jurisdictional and non-negotiable. Any deviation renders the 148A(d) order, notice under Section 148, and subsequent assessment invalid.
ITAT Delhi clarified that Section 153A is not meant to reassess completed years in absence of seized evidence. The ₹6.11 lakh addition was therefore held to be without jurisdiction.
While sustaining additions on merits, ITAT Delhi restricted taxable income to a lump-sum 8% of Section 68-type amounts. The estimation was granted as a one-time relief and expressly not treated as a precedent.
Gourav Chand Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Delhi ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A), NFAC sustaining addition of ₹50.45 lakh towards cash deposits and restored the entire matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal noted that though the AO had issued notices u/s 142(1), the assessment was completed in undue haste within […]
ITAT Delhi emphasized that FAR analysis governs segmentation for transfer pricing purposes. Artificial aggregation without disproving segmental allocation cannot justify adjustments.
The ITAT held that rejecting Rule 11UA valuation without verifying exclusions of non-realisable assets violates natural justice. Valuation additions were remanded for fresh examination, stressing non-mechanical application of deeming provisions.
The Tribunal held that amalgamation approved by the High Court cannot be treated as a sham or business reconstruction. Deduction under Section 80IC was upheld as the eligible unit continued unchanged.
The issue was whether payments for supplying in-flight entertainment content constituted royalty. The Tribunal held that mere provision and processing of licensed content without transfer of copyright does not amount to royalty under the India-UK DTAA.
The issue was whether contingent liabilities disclosed only in the tax audit report could be added under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held that such additions require factual verification and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether a mismatch between ledger sales and P&L sales justified a major addition. The Tribunal held that reconciliation explaining VAT, service tax, and other receipts removed the difference, making the addition unsustainable.
