The issue was whether contingent liabilities disclosed only in the tax audit report could be added under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held that such additions require factual verification and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether a mismatch between ledger sales and P&L sales justified a major addition. The Tribunal held that reconciliation explaining VAT, service tax, and other receipts removed the difference, making the addition unsustainable.
The issue was whether appeals could be dismissed outright for delay without examining the merits. The Tribunal held that justice required restoration where plausible reasons for delay were cited and directed reconsideration.
ITAT Delhi directed that a trust lacking 12A registration cannot be taxed on gross receipts; only surplus income applied outside charitable purposes is taxable.
LL Global Inc. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ₹50 Lakh Threshold Is Mandatory: ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment of Foreign Company as Time-Barred Delhi ITAT (Bench ‘D’) quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 r.w.s. 148, holding them to be barred by limitation under the amended law. The Tribunal noted that the notices u/s 148 were issued […]
The issue was whether appeals dismissed for an extraordinary delay could be restored. The Tribunal held that, despite the assessee’s lapses, justice required giving an opportunity to seek condonation and have the case decided on merits.
ITAT Delhi ruled that CIT(E) cannot evaluate the merit of charitable activities when granting 12AB/80G registration, restoring the trust’s exemptions. Procedural overreach by tax authorities cannot deny valid registration.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a sub-broker’s turnover includes only brokerage income, not total client transactions, and deleted ₹1.5 lakh penalty under Section 271B.
ITAT allowed condonation of a 321-day delay in appeal filing, emphasizing procedural fairness when assessment orders are delivered electronically.
The issue was whether higher depreciation on goods carriage vehicles could be disallowed during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable claims need scrutiny and cannot be adjusted under section 143(1).
