ITAT Kolkata held that an employee cannot be denied TDS credit if the employer fails to deposit deducted tax. Once TDS is deducted from salary, it is deemed paid, and the employee’s liability does not arise. The Tribunal directed full TDS credit and deletion of the demand.
Tribunal held that AO had conducted detailed inquiries on a partner’s debit balance and correctly accepted it as capital withdrawal, not a loan. PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was based on assumptions and a change of opinion, not any factual error. The order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the payment to the labour union was backed by a formal settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act involving 26 workers. It ruled that the assessee demonstrated clear business nexus and commercial expediency in resolving labour unrest. The disallowance under Section 37(1) was therefore deleted.
ITAT Delhi ruled that section 153C notices for AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 were time-barred, exceeding the 10-year limit from receipt of seized material. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction under 153C requires both timeliness and relevance of incriminating material. All assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid as NFAC completed the process without issuing a mandatory notice under section 148A. It ruled that an assessment is void when the jurisdictional notice is issued by one authority but finalized by another.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based solely on a vague Investigation Wing alert, without any independent verification or link to the assessee, was invalid. It ruled that the AO failed to record a proper reason to believe and later assessed an unrelated issue. The entire reassessment was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
The ITAT Delhi quashed reassessment for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, ruling that approvals from a lower authority instead of the one specified under Section 151(ii) are void. Revenue’s appeals were dismissed, emphasizing strict statutory compliance.
The ITAT ruled that a reassessment notice issued by a non-jurisdictional officer is void, quashing a demand of ₹1.01 crore and invalidating the assessment.
The Tribunal held that reliance on the remand report without giving the assessee a chance to rebut violated natural justice. While the jurisdiction challenge was rejected as time-barred under section 124(3), the ₹5.80 crore LTCG addition was sent back for fresh examination. The case underscores that appellate authorities must provide fair opportunity before upholding major additions.
The Tribunal reinstated the entire disallowance after finding the purchases completely non-genuine. It held that estimation theory cannot apply where transactions are proven to be sham.
