SEO Description: The Tribunal ruled that sanction granted by merely stating as per annexure reflects no independent application of mind. Such mechanical approval violates statutory requirements. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were set aside.
SEO Description: Relying on binding Delhi High Court authority, the Tribunal held that EDC payments require TDS under Section 194C. Non-compliance validly triggered demand and interest provisions.
ITAT Delhi held that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus merely on market suspicion or SEBI alerts without concrete evidence of manipulation.
The issue was whether an appeal could be heard by an ITAT bench lacking territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer, leading to dismissal with liberty to refile before the correct bench.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) fails where the notice alleged inaccurate particulars but the levy was based on concealment.
The ITAT set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was dismissed without proper hearing or examination of the assessee’s case.
The case addressed whether recorded purchases of ₹4.55 crore could still be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that without evidence of off-book investments, section 69 has no application.
The Tribunal ruled that payments for IPL and MPLS bandwidth services do not constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty, following consistent earlier rulings.
The Tribunal ruled that non-filing of submissions alone cannot justify confirming penalties under section 271D. CIT(A) orders were set aside, and reassessment was directed after providing full hearing rights.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 153C proceedings cannot proceed on mere suspicion; the AO must establish that seized material impacts the assessee’s total income. The assessments for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were fully quashed.
