ITAT Delhi set aside the income tax assessment for AY 2020-21 after the proprietor’s death, directing the Assessing Officer to decide afresh on the legal representative’s liability. The ruling emphasizes proper recognition of legal heirs in tax proceedings.
Tribunal remanded issue of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 to Assessing Officer for fresh verification, citing lack of adequate opportunity and consideration of evidence by lower authorities.
Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold flats treated as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under Income from House Property. The ruling clarifies that only actual rental income or sale proceeds are taxable, protecting developers from arbitrary assessments.
SC held that even with a breach of insurance policy terms, insurer must first pay accident compensation and can later recover it from vehicle owner under pay-and-recover principle.
Tribunal held that tax authorities erred in invoking Article 24A to deny capital gains exemption under Article 13(4A) without first satisfying preconditions of economic substance. The decision underscores that anti-abuse provisions cannot override bona fide investments made before 2017.
Tribunal clarified that a DVO report, being an estimation, cannot form sole basis for additions under Section 69B. Without proof of actual extra expenditure by assessee, such additions are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi condoned a delay of over 1,000 days in filing an appeal, holding that the Covid-19 period stands excluded under the Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation, allowing the assessee’s appeal to proceed.
The Tribunal allowed stay of recovery after directing a jewellery firm to pay ₹10 lakh and furnish a ₹10 lakh bank guarantee, holding 20% payment mandatory under section 254(2A).
The Tribunal found that subscription payments were made for using copyrighted articles, not for using copyright itself. Hence, the income was not taxable in India as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of the DTAA with the USA.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
