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.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowing outstanding sub-contract expenses payable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit without specific reasoning and without pointing out defects in books of accounts is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted.
The Tribunal quashed the Assessing Officer’s action of taxing the entire purchase value after invoking Section 145(3). Only estimated profit embedded in such purchases, if higher than declared profit, can be brought to tax.
Kerala High Court held that Competition Commission of India [CCI] possess jurisdiction for investigating anti-competitive practices in telecommunication sector inspite of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 regulations.
The Tribunal reiterated that tax authorities cannot impose notional income merely because interest could have been charged. Commercial decisions on interest-free advances lie with the assessee, not the assessing officer.
