Cane Deveopment Council Rohana Kalan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12. Four appeals filed by two assessees were heard together due to similarity in facts, with one matter treated as the lead case. The assessee challenged the penalty […]
ITAT rules that reliance on remand report from a different year is invalid, restoring matter to Assessing Officer for AY 2012-13.
ITAT held that AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were time-barred since the 10-year window must be computed from the date of recorded satisfaction. The ruling reaffirms that out-of-range years cannot be assessed under 153C.
ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was fully backed by prior withdrawals exceeding ₹47 lakh. The ruling confirms that demonstrated cash availability defeats Section 68 additions.
Tribunal held that AY 2010–11 was beyond the statutory 10-year window, making the 153A assessment invalid. Time-barred years cannot be revived under extended search assessments.
ITAT Delhi set aside reassessment because notices under Sections 148, 148A(b), and 148A(d) lacked digital or manual signatures. Procedural lapses can invalidate reassessments entirely.
An addition of ₹1 crore under section 68 was challenged on the ground that the assessee had no opportunity to produce supporting documents. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment, keeping all contentions open.
The ITAT ruled a reassessment under Section 147 invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue the mandatory Section 143(2) notice. compliance with notice requirements is crucial for valid reassessment.
The Revenue relied on third-party statements and WhatsApp data to allege an unrecorded ₹25 crore cash loan, but brought no supporting inquiry or cross-examination. The Tribunal held that the AO’s conclusion was speculative, especially when bank-backed evidence, TDS records, and a registered loan agreement supported only a ₹10 crore loan. Key takeaway: additions under Section 69A require concrete evidence, not assumptions.
ITAT Delhi ruled that policy advocacy for EU businesses in India is charitable, as it has no profit motive and benefits the public. CIT(E)’s denial was set aside, and 12A registration restored.
