ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search relating to the assessment year in question. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) did not provide a clear satisfaction or approval on the reasons recorded by the AO, as required by Section 151(1) for reassessment beyond four years. The mere initial of the CIT was insufficient to establish the required satisfaction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the notice for reassessment issued beyond four years was invalid. It also agreed that the retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC should not be detrimental to the assessee, following High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. Since the Revenue failed to rebut the evidence, the addition under Section 68 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal decided to exclude Infosys BPO Ltd. and Wipro Ltd. from the list of comparable companies used for benchmarking the international transactions due to significant differences in size, scale, and business operations. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the treatment of foreign exchange gains and losses as operating expenditure.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that crucial documents were not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination and providing the assessee with a full opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not verified the assessee's claim that investments were made from surplus funds. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that crucial documents were not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination and providing the assessee with a full opportunity to be heard.