ITAT Delhi Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reassessment was indeed based on a change of opinion and was barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the issue of advertisement expenses was common to both reassessment notices, and the second notice was issued beyond four years.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not cooperate with the revenue authorities and failed to produce complete books of accounts and vouchers. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition for unverifiable purchases, stating that if purchases were bogus, sales to the same party should also be treated as bogus. The issue of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans and fixed assets. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial deletion of additions related to sundry creditors, finding no reason to reject the additional evidence accepted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without any tangible material outside the record and were based on a mere change of opinion. Consequently, the reassessment notice and order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) is not applicable when the assessee acknowledges a liability and has not written it off, especially when subsequent payments are made. The decision relied on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Hotline Electronics Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the relief for stock should have been calculated based on the cost price, not by reducing the gross profit rate from the selling price. The AO was directed to provide further relief.