ITAT Surat restored reassessment appeals to the CIT(A) after observing that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal imposed costs due to partial compliance before the appellate authority.
The adjudicating authority held that the company remained in continuous default for several years after becoming legally required to appoint a Company Secretary. The order emphasizes strict enforcement of corporate governance obligations relating to key managerial personnel appointments.
Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
Lucknow ITAT held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt dividend income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the actual exempt income amount.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should reconsider the matter after the jurisdictional High Court decides pending cases concerning alleged bogus purchase bills by rice millers.
The courts upheld LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to alleged penny stock manipulation. Documentary records, banking transactions, and Demat evidence supported the genuineness of the share transactions.
Tribunal ruled that once DSIR certifies R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB), the Assessing Officer cannot disregard the claim without following the statutory procedure. The decision reinforces the importance of DSIR certification in weighted deduction disputes.
The Jodhpur ITAT condoned a 30-day delay in filing an income tax appeal after holding that the delay fell within the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exemption period. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Calcutta High Court held that the assessing officer misconstrued CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2024 while rejecting carry forward of loss due to a seven-day filing delay. The Court directed the authorities to condone the delay and process the return according to law.
The Delhi ITAT held that advertisement and marketing expenses could not be treated as an international transaction without evidence of an arrangement with the associated enterprise. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and rejected the application of the Bright Line Test.
