ITAT Delhi held that the addition of Rs. 73,99,475 as LTCG under Section 10(38) was unjustified, as the assessee provided complete evidence and no direct link to alleged bogus transactions was established.
The Tribunal ruled that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed as the Revenue failed to establish any Permanent Establishment. It confirms that FOB-based offshore execution shields non-residents from Indian taxation.
ITAT held that charitable trusts without member-wise income shares cannot be taxed at 30% MMR. Tax must be applied at normal slab rates per CBDT Circular 320.
The ITAT held that excise-duty exemption for backward-area units is capital in nature since the incentive aims at industrial growth, not business profits. The ruling protects such incentives from tax under normal and AMT provisions.
Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive once the Section 14A addition is deleted, especially where no exempt income was earned. The ruling reiterates that prospective amendments cannot justify retrospective disallowances.
The assessee’s exemption under section 11 was initially denied as Form 10B was filed after the return. The court held that timely availability before assessment suffices. Key takeaway: Section 11 benefits apply if Form 10B is accessible during assessment.
The Tribunal held that DCF valuation cannot be discarded merely because projections differ from actual results. AO’s failure to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer rendered the Section 56(2)(viib) addition unsustainable.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order violated natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision with proper opportunity to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since the same is out of the cash sales and both cash book and books of account justifies the same. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that a reassessment notice issued three years after the relevant AY is invalid if the alleged escaped income is below ₹50 lakh, reinforcing the statutory threshold protection.
