The Tribunal condoned an extraordinary 2315-day delay, noting that the disallowance arose from a return-filing error and not lack of application of income. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The AO invoked Explanation 1(v) to section 153 to justify delay. The Tribunal clarified that an invalid 142A reference gives no such protection, rendering the order time-barred.
Protective addition was sustained despite completion of substantive assessment. ITAT clarified that protective assessment cannot survive after ownership and taxability are conclusively determined.
The assessee produced full details of the share subscriber, including financials and bank statements. ITAT held that after primary onus is discharged, the burden shifts to the Department, which was not met.
The case examined whether exchange data alone could justify taxing alleged commodity profits. The Tribunal ruled that once the broker admits wrong PAN mapping and identifies the real trader, the addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether late filing of Form 67 bars foreign tax credit under DTAA. ITAT held that FTC is a substantive right under section 90 and cannot be denied for a procedural delay.
The AO made a ₹90 lakh addition under section 68 despite the case being under limited scrutiny. ITAT held that crossing the approved scope renders the addition and assessment void.
The ITAT held that the proviso to Section 68 requiring proof of source of source applies only from AY 2013–14. Since the year involved was AY 2008–09, the ₹32.04 crore share capital addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The ITAT held that reassessment based only on Investigation Wing inputs, without independent application of mind, is invalid. Since reopening itself failed, the Section 68 share capital addition could not survive.
The ITAT ruled that an inadvertent mistake in selecting the assessment year while filing Form 10AB cannot defeat an existing valid registration. Mechanical rejection without record verification was held unsustainable.
