P&H High Court held that where loan taken subsequent to the purchase of the property cannot be said that the same was utilized for acquiring the property. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in declining the benefit of Section 24(b) of the Act. Equally, once it is held that the assessee had not borrowed any capital for the purchase of the property, the assessee was not entitled to any deduction under Section 80C(1) read with 80C(2)(xviii) of the Act.- Vijay Aggarwal 27-08-2015[P&H] [2016] 65 taxmann.com 16 (Punjab & Haryana)[Para 9]

P& H HC affirmed finding of ITAT that Invitation as placed in paper book is from son and daughter in law of the assessee. The A.O. has made whole of the addition in the hands of the assessee which is not justified. - Vijay Aggarwal 27-08-2015[P&H] [2016] 65 taxmann.com 16 (Punjab & Haryana)[Para 11]

Addition of Rs. 2,22,500/- on account of 89 liquor bottles. Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the finding of Tribunal that since the assessee was staying in a joint family consisting of his son and daughter-in-law and all the bottles cannot be said to have been purchased in one year and the existence of so many bottles can only point out to the fact that these must have been gathered over a period of time and, therefore, an addition of Rs. 1 lac would meet the ends of justice. –Vijay Aggarwal 27-08-2015[P&H] [2016] 65 taxmann.com 16 (Punjab & Haryana)[Para 13]

Delhi High Court in Tupperware India (P) Ltd [2016] 65 taxmann.com 17 (Delhi)[10-08-2015] held that in absence of any tangible material available with Assessing Officer to form requisite belief regarding escapement of income, reassessment of return u/s 143(1) can not be done . It followed Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 536 (Del) which pronounced that Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) does not give a carte blanche to the Assessing Officer to disturb the finality of the intimation under section 143(1) and reopening in absence of new material is bad in law. In present case, AO after having processed the return u/s 143(1) took note of audit report which stated that since no tax deducted on management fee, expesnse is not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia). This fact earlier went unnoticed in processing of return. Comments: Delhi High Court has however not taken note of another Supreme Court Judgement in Zuari Estate on 17-04-2015, which has stated that since as per Rajesh Jhaveri (supra) intimation is not assessment, hence no opinion is formed by accepting return u/s 143(1) and there fore reopening in the absence of new material does not entail change of opinion and hence reopening is valid.