ITAT Delhi held that operating a primary school itself constitutes “education,” removing the need for CBSE or DOE affiliation for 12A registration under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officers communication did not consider the assessees objections but only reiterated the basis of reopening. As the objections were not disposed of through a separate speaking order, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction. The ruling underscores that non-compliance with GKN Driveshafts cannot be treated as a mere procedural lapse.
The Tribunal emphasized that an error regarding VRS exemption made by a salaried, non-technical taxpayer cannot be classified as deliberate under-reporting. With no false claim or suppression, the 270A penalty was deleted.
Genuine sale was established through invoices, stock records, ledgers, bank proofs, and direct buyer confirmations, leaving no room for Section 68 additions. ITAT held that when sales are proved, no commission can be presumed under Section 69C.
The Tribunal held that notices under section 153C issued without independent satisfaction by the AO are invalid, quashing the consequent assessments for AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
ITAT Delhi held that essential house fixtures like cupboards, modular kitchen, and beds are integral to habitability and can be included in the cost of improvement. AO was directed to allow Rs. 3.50 lakh claimed in long-term capital gains computation.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices under section 148 issued to a deceased person are invalid, emphasizing that such notices cannot confer jurisdiction and proceedings are void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that delivery order charges are directly connected to air-cargo transportation and fall within Article 8 of the India–UK DTAA. The ruling confirms such receipts form part of international traffic income and are not taxable in India.
Delhi ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for hearing merits despite refusing to condone an eight-month delay, highlighting the need for proper legal procedure and natural justice.
The ITAT annulled the entire reassessment because the Section 148 notice was issued after the Supreme Court–mandated surviving-period cutoff. The ruling confirms that any notice beyond this timeline is void ab initio.
