ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2017

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated. The information received from the Investigation Wing, without any corroborating material, was considered a reason to suspect but not a tangible basis for 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of manufacturing activities and fulfilled the conditions for Section 10B deduction. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on insufficient grounds and ignored the evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no justification to interfere. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to Section 36(1)(viia), confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the arbitrary disallowance.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred after the business is set up, even before commencement, are allowable. It confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the business was set up based on approvals and agreements, following its own precedent from a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was valid as the Assessing Officer of the searched person was also the Assessing Officer of the assessee. However, an addition of Rs. 9 lacs was deleted as the relevant document was not mentioned in the satisfaction note.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to their absence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the unexplained money and the addition for jewellery was deleted in income tax proceedings, the additions were deleted in wealth tax proceedings as well.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 10,11,640/-. The CIT(A) had rightly observed that the advances were for acquiring a capital asset not yet in use and the assessee failed to establish the source of funds or availability of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no justification to interfere. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to Section 36(1)(viia), confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the arbitrary disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Invoking Rule 8D solely based on the quantum of tax-free dividend income is not a valid basis for satisfaction.