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.
The ITAT annulled the entire reassessment because the Section 148 notice was issued after the Supreme Court–mandated surviving-period cutoff. The ruling confirms that any notice beyond this timeline is void ab initio.
The ITAT ruled that a vague, copy-paste satisfaction note cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since no specific seized documents were identified, the entire assessment was struck down.
