ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground, observing that the assessment orders lacked proof of issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2), and the Revenue failed to provide such proof. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Laxmann Dass Khandelwal and the Tribunal's own precedent in Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, it held that assessments completed without proper service of notice u/s 143(2) are void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for all three assessment years, declining to adjudicate on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground, observing that the assessment orders lacked proof of issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2), and the Revenue failed to provide such proof. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Laxmann Dass Khandelwal and the Tribunal's own precedent in Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, it held that assessments completed without proper service of notice u/s 143(2) are void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for all three assessment years, declining to adjudicate on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground, observing that the assessment orders lacked proof of issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2), and the Revenue failed to provide such proof. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Laxmann Dass Khandelwal and the Tribunal's own precedent in Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, it held that assessments completed without proper service of notice u/s 143(2) are void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for all three assessment years, declining to adjudicate on the merits of the additions.

The tribunal found force in the assessee's plea, acknowledging its bona fide belief and the prospective application of the Delhi High Court's judgment (Rajesh Projects (supra)) which clarified the TDS obligation. Since the assessment year (A.Y. 2012-13) preceded the prospective judgment date (16th February 2017), the cause of action for treating the assessee as in default under Sections 201(1)/201(1A) was not available to the Revenue. The tribunal also noted a similar relief granted by a co-ordinate bench in an identical factual matrix, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders for both appeals.

The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by not proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had the right to receive the professional fee in the relevant year and it should have been offered for tax on accrual basis. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had disclosed all relevant details, and the dispute was about the acceptability of the claim by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had the right to receive the professional fee in the relevant year and it should have been offered for tax on accrual basis. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had disclosed all relevant details, and the dispute was about the acceptability of the claim by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was a mere technical approval without due application of mind by the superior authority. Consequently, the assessment order was rendered unenforceable in law.

The Tribunal found that, based on the balance sheet particulars, the assessee had received neither any share capital nor share premium during the relevant year, contrary to the allegations made in the AO's 'reasons to believe'. Since the 'reasons to believe' as contemplated by the Income Tax Act were not met on facts or legality, the order of the Assessing Officer was treated as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was a mere technical approval without due application of mind by the superior authority. Consequently, the assessment order was rendered unenforceable in law.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was a mere technical approval without due application of mind by the superior authority. Consequently, the assessment order was rendered unenforceable in law.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was a mere technical approval without due application of mind by the superior authority. Consequently, the assessment order was rendered unenforceable in law.

The tribunal held that the erroneous ITA numbers are rectified and should be correctly read as 'ITAs No.375, 376, 377, 378 & 379/Del/2022 and CO No.65, 66, 67, 68 & 69/Del/2023'. This corrigendum will be an integral part of the main order, which was pronounced on 13.05.2024.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was a mere technical approval without due application of mind by the superior authority. Consequently, the assessment order was rendered unenforceable in law.

The tribunal held that the erroneous ITA numbers are rectified and should be correctly read as 'ITAs No.375, 376, 377, 378 & 379/Del/2022 and CO No.65, 66, 67, 68 & 69/Del/2023'. This corrigendum will be an integral part of the main order, which was pronounced on 13.05.2024.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was a mere technical approval without due application of mind by the superior authority. Consequently, the assessment order was rendered unenforceable in law.

The tribunal held that the erroneous ITA numbers are rectified and should be correctly read as 'ITAs No.375, 376, 377, 378 & 379/Del/2022 and CO No.65, 66, 67, 68 & 69/Del/2023'. This corrigendum will be an integral part of the main order, which was pronounced on 13.05.2024.

The tribunal held that the erroneous ITA numbers are rectified and should be correctly read as 'ITAs No.375, 376, 377, 378 & 379/Del/2022 and CO No.65, 66, 67, 68 & 69/Del/2023'. This corrigendum will be an integral part of the main order, which was pronounced on 13.05.2024.

The tribunal held that the erroneous ITA numbers are rectified and should be correctly read as 'ITAs No.375, 376, 377, 378 & 379/Del/2022 and CO No.65, 66, 67, 68 & 69/Del/2023'. This corrigendum will be an integral part of the main order, which was pronounced on 13.05.2024.