ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that reopening notice u/s. 148 being issued beyond period of three years on the basis of approval u/s. 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act obtained from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax [Pr. CIT] instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General is invalid and liable to be quashed.
The tribunal ruled rental income from administrative buildings must be taxed under house property, not other sources, emphasizing consistent treatment across years. Key deductions for standard, sub-letting, and interest were allowed.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal noted that even the Revenue admitted TOLA does not cover AY 2015-16. Notices issued after the original limitation period were therefore invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that non-filing of returns, absence of audited books, and lack of donor details defeat the claim for exemption under Section 13A. Voluntary contributions thus became taxable, though Section 68 additions were set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that compliance with the statutory hierarchy under Section 151 is jurisdictional and non-negotiable. Any deviation renders the 148A(d) order, notice under Section 148, and subsequent assessment invalid.
ITAT Delhi clarified that Section 153A is not meant to reassess completed years in absence of seized evidence. The ₹6.11 lakh addition was therefore held to be without jurisdiction.
While sustaining additions on merits, ITAT Delhi restricted taxable income to a lump-sum 8% of Section 68-type amounts. The estimation was granted as a one-time relief and expressly not treated as a precedent.
Gourav Chand Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Delhi ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A), NFAC sustaining addition of ₹50.45 lakh towards cash deposits and restored the entire matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal noted that though the AO had issued notices u/s 142(1), the assessment was completed in undue haste within […]
The Tribunal clarified that the institution existed solely for education and had no unrelated profit-oriented objects. Hence, the stricter test laid down in New Noble Educational Society did not apply.
The Tribunal admitted a gift deed filed for the first time before it, noting that the donor was no longer alive. The ₹26.36 lakh addition was remanded for verification of the deed and surrounding circumstances.
