In a search assessment dispute, the ITAT Delhi struck down an addition of cash payments, concluding that the diary entries used as evidence were rough, unsigned jottings with no established link to the taxpayer’s finances beyond speculation. The entire addition was deleted as the diary lacked legal evidentiary value.
Roop Singh Yadav Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At New Delhi) ED Dams the Flow- From River Beautification to Corruption– Gomti Riverfront Scam – Tribunal Upholds ED’s Attachment of IAS Engineer’s Family Properties in ₹30 Lakh Bribe Case The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, in its Final Order, dismissed […]
Even properties acquired using personal savings or transferred within family can be attached if linked to proceeds of crime. The Tribunal emphasized intent and connection to criminal funds over formal ownership documents.
Delhi ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of a Rs.19.18 crore protective addition against an alleged entry operator. Ruling affirmed that since AO accepted assessee as a commission agent, only estimated commission income, and not entire turnover, was taxable in agent’s hands.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal for AY 2017-18, confirming CIT(A)/NFAC’s deletion of disallowances on fixed deposit interest, bad debts, software expenses, inter-office adjustments, and depreciation on investments. Tribunal relied on consistent precedents, RBI/ICDS guidelines, and prior assessments to uphold the bank’s claims.
The Tribunal set aside the PCIT’s revision of a scrutiny assessment, ruling the action invalid because the Assessing Officer’s view on critical items like creditors and PF/ESI payments was already plausible and reasoned. Introducing new issues not covered in the show-cause notice constituted an exercise of jurisdiction beyond the permissible scope of Section 263.
This case clarifies that eligibility for the Section 80-IA deduction must be verified project-by-project, irrespective of a taxpayer’s status in a previous year. The Tribunal held that only projects previously approved by the Settlement Commission are eligible, requiring fresh scrutiny for all new or unverified contracts.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of a senior NRI, condoning the 1695-day delay because the assessment order was served on a corporate email that became inactive after his contract ended. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after issuing notice to the taxpayer’s correct personal email, highlighting the priority of natural justice over strict delay excuses.
This ruling clarifies that cash deposits during the demonetization period cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 68 when they are fully reflected in the business’s accepted books and sales. The ITAT emphasized that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the addition, thereby deleting the entire demand.
This case addresses the disallowance of employees’ PF and ESI contributions deposited after the due dates specified in the respective Acts, following the Supreme Court’s Checkmate Services decision. The ITAT required a fresh verification to allow the deduction if the payments were made within 15 days of the actual salary disbursement.
