The issue was whether a hydro power subsidy should reduce the cost of assets. The Tribunal held the subsidy was for project encouragement, not asset cost. Depreciation withdrawal was therefore unsustainable.
The Revenue invoked section 115BBE based on cash found during proceedings. However, the Tribunal found the foundational approval under section 153D defective. The entire assessment was therefore quashed.
The dispute involved confirmation of unexplained cash deposits without granting a requested VC hearing. The Tribunal held that denial of virtual hearing violated natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Despite allegations of sham sub-contracts, the project was shown to be completed, commissioned and operational. The Tribunal held that once the asset exists and is used, depreciation cannot be denied without concrete proof of bogus cost.
The Tribunal ruled that section 271AAB applies only to undisclosed income found in search, not to routine disallowances from recorded books.
ITAT Delhi held that mere Whatsapp messages showing demand do not justify Section 69A additions unless actual receipt of money is proved.
The issue was whether CPC could disallow share capital fees not claimed as deduction. The ITAT held that no adjustment is permissible when the amount is directly booked in retained earnings.
The Tribunal held that ritualistic approval under section 153D, without application of mind, vitiates search assessments. Mandatory supervisory approval must reflect genuine examination of draft orders.
The ITAT held that appeals must be filed before the correct jurisdictional bench. An appeal filed before the wrong Tribunal is liable to dismissal at the threshold.
The ITAT held that approval under section 151 by an incompetent authority invalidates reassessment. Sanction must strictly follow statutory hierarchy.
