ITAT Kolkata held that the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses [AMP Expense] not an international transaction and accordingly, the TP adjustment made by Transfer Pricing Officer/ AO is to be deleted. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi held that the absence of office premises and expatriate activity meant the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal ruled that Revenue cannot rely solely on past orders without verifying current-year facts.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer of an undertaking under a court-approved scheme cannot be characterised as a slum sale within the meaning of section 2(42C) hence provisions of section 50B not attracted.
Bombay HC clarified Section 276C(2), holding that mere failure to pay self-assessment tax is not willful evasion, quashing prosecution after tax was paid belatedly.
The ITAT deleted a protective addition under Section 68 for cash deposits after finding the same income was already declared and taxed in the partners’ individual returns, rendering the firm’s assessment redundant.
CESTAT Bangalore held that additional duty of customs is very much leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act in respect of imported natural rubber equal to the duty of excise levied as cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947. Accordingly, refund rightly denied and appeal rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of principle of consistency. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
The P&H High Court in the Arvind Fashion Ltd case ruled that the time spent on a bona fide GST rectification application (Sec 161) must be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal (Sec 107). This decision provides clarity on procedural timelines.
The MP High Court set aside an appeal dismissal, clarifying that GST appeal limitation (Sec 107) must exclude the first day and be calculated by months, not days. Costs recoverable from official.
