The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty value must be taken as on the year of agreement when part consideration is paid through banking channels. Since the buyer paid in 2011 and received allotment in 2012, adopting 2017 stamp value was invalid. The ruling reaffirms strict application of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b).
ITAT Delhi held that essential house fixtures like cupboards, modular kitchen, and beds are integral to habitability and can be included in the cost of improvement. AO was directed to allow Rs. 3.50 lakh claimed in long-term capital gains computation.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices under section 148 issued to a deceased person are invalid, emphasizing that such notices cannot confer jurisdiction and proceedings are void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that delivery order charges are directly connected to air-cargo transportation and fall within Article 8 of the India–UK DTAA. The ruling confirms such receipts form part of international traffic income and are not taxable in India.
Tribunal allowed assessee’s application to file additional evidence proving residential nature of the property. AO is directed to re-evaluate the claim afresh, granting opportunity for hearing and considering all relevant materials and case laws.
Tribunal held that MEIS/MLFPS rewards are capital receipts, not income under sections 2(24)(xviii) or 28. The ruling confirms that export-linked duty scrip sales are non-taxable when meant for market expansion.
Delhi ITAT sets aside CIT(A) order for hearing merits despite refusing to condone an eight-month delay, highlighting the need for proper legal procedure and natural justice.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank can proceed against one or all personal guarantors of Corporate Debtor u/s. 95. Merely because bank proceeded against only one personal guarantor cannot be any reason to reject any application u/s. 95 of IBC.
Tribunal held that additions made solely on ex-parte proceedings cannot stand when the taxpayer was unable to comply due to age-related limitations. The case was remanded for fresh assessment with a direction to provide proper opportunity.
