ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was not justified as the AO's belief was based on suspicion rather than tangible material. The reasons recorded failed to demonstrate a link between material and the belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was relevant but had not been considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the new documents and contentions.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as it was not found in the seized document. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remitted back to the AO for re-computation, considering only investments yielding tax-free income. The disallowance under Section 43B was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to give benefit in the year of actual payment.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as it was not found in the seized document. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remitted back to the AO for re-computation, considering only investments yielding tax-free income. The disallowance under Section 43B was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to give benefit in the year of actual payment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash from bank withdrawals and agricultural income to cover the deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions, including the creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of excess cash, agreeing that the assessee's explanation for the stock difference, supported by purchase bills and reconciliation, was not adequately controverted by the AO. The cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of hearing notices to the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude certain comparables based on functional and financial profile, while rejecting the assessee's plea to withdraw another comparable. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to verify information for other comparables.