Delhi Tribunal

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)

Section 132,148 Cancelled receipt of Rs. 11 lacs showing total transaction of Rs. 61 lacs signed by Sanjeev on behalf of Romy was found and Romy surrendered Rs. 11 Lacs only. AO has not confronted contents of said receipts from S. Addition made of Rs. 50 Lacs is deleted in the absence of any other corroborative material before AO. ROMI LAL NANDA vs.ITO. ITAT Delhi order date 28.9.2020. IT-CASES-212-2020
Section 132, 153A Assessment was completed under section 143(1). Completed assessments can be interfered with by A.O. while making assessment under section 153A only on basis of some incriminating material unearthed during course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment. ACIT v. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA 30.9.2020 Delhi ITAT IT-CASES-211-2020
Section 132, 153A What AO can do with item found in search is already disclosed in ITR and Balance Sheet submitted?IT-CASES-210-2020
Section 148, 147:Client Code Modification is reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Re-assessment is quashed. STRATAGEM PORTFOLIO (P.) LTD. vs. DCIT. ITAT DELHI BENCH AY 2010-11. In favour of Assessee.
Section 14A For the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act instead of taking into account total investment, only such investments which yielded exempt dividend income during the year are required to be considered for the purpose of disallowance. RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. & ANR. vs. DCIT. In favour of Assessee. ITAT Delhi
Friends this case is belonging to Section 132, 143(1), 153A(1) and 153C. ITAT DELHI on Jun 30, 2020 on the issue of determining the six assessment years prior to the date of search. Facts in brief are that the document of the assessee was found during search operation on dated 9.10.2014 at the premises of Shri Mulchand Malu and Shri Vikas Malu and therefore the assessee was the “other person” to be assessed u/s 153C. Further there was undisputed facts that the documents etc., were handed-over to the A.O. of the assessee was in the month of September, 2016. It was held that therefore the six assessment years prior to the date of search in the case of the assessee is A.Ys. 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction with the A.O. to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the same was held to be without jurisdiction, void abinitio and was quashed. ACIT vs. KUBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AY 2009-2010. In favour of the assessee
Section 14A envisages that there has to be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant previous year for purpose of making any disallowance u/s 14A, Section 2(22)(e) do not apply when transactions are trading business transactions and The provisions of section 50C cannot be incorporated in the computation of block of the assets. DCIT vs. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED. AY 2013-14
Section 263 ITAT DELHI on May 14, 2020 Issues subject to revision u/s 263 were ‎pertaining to original assessment u/s 143(3) and not the reopened assessment u/s ‎‎147; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In this case as ‎original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act was passed on 16.01.2014, the ‎revision thereof could have been taken up to 31.3.2016. Impugned order u/s 263 ‎of the act was passed on 26/2/2019, therefore it is clearly beyond the limitation ‎prescribed u/s 263 (2) of the act. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. vs. PCIT
Section 2(14): Income earned by the assessee constitute business income not Long Term ‎Capital Gains reason that the assessee has always shown it as closing stock of ‎agricultural land in the balance sheets and the object is of property business. Following ‎contention of the assessee was not accepted the land is always valued at cost, period of ‎holding for 13 years, accepting by deptt for deriving of agricultural income from the ‎land. KOHLI ESTATES PVT. LTD. vs. ITO ITAT DELHI on May 5, 2020 AY 2011-‎‎12.‎
Rule 46A. The assessee submitted that additional evidence before the CIT(A), but the ‎CIT(A) has not admitted the same. The CIT(A) should have looked into the additional ‎evidences while arriving at the proper conclusion which the CIT(A) failed to do so. In the ‎present case, the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act which shows that ‎the Assessing Officer has not seen any evidences while making additions. Thus, we are ‎admitting the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A). ‎ITAT DELHI on May 15, 2020 AY 2010-11‎. Rakesh Aggarwal vs. ITO