Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹21.88 lakh partly reduced to 0.5% corporate guarantee fee. Tribunal confirms international transaction status but applies consistent methodology with prior years.
The Tribunal examined opening cash balance of ₹6.16 lakh brought forward from prior year. CIT(A) had disallowed it, but AO verification confirmed its genuineness. ITAT set aside the addition under Section 69A and allowed the appeal.
The assessee alleged denial of opportunity and improper handling of evidence. The Tribunal agreed that the appellate order was passed without due consideration of records and remand findings. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Lenders had confirmed loans in response to statutory notices, yet additions were made. The Tribunal upheld deletion by CIT(A), stressing the importance of uncontroverted confirmations. The ruling reinforces evidentiary discipline in Section 68 cases.
Revenue counted limitation from the third-party search date, while the assessee argued it should start from document handover. ITAT Delhi agreed, holding the assessment outside the six-year period, thereby voiding it.
The Tribunal found that satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded long after the search and document transfer. Applying binding judicial precedent, ITAT ruled that the assessment was barred by limitation and therefore null and void.
The issue was whether accumulated income could be taxed merely because it was not spent exactly for the purpose stated in Form-10. ITAT Delhi held that as long as funds are applied toward charitable educational objects, technical lapses or non-intimation to the AO cannot defeat exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal found that alleged cash payments lacked any agreement, bank trails, or confirmation from recipients, making the addition legally untenable. ITAT emphasized adherence to evidentiary standards under Section 65B and deleted the addition entirely.
Jaipur Tribunal observed that the son had no independent income, and the purchase was made solely from the assessee’s funds. Consequently, restriction of exemption to 50% by the CIT(A) was set aside, confirming full Section 54F relief.
ITAT Chennai held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) with only one day to respond violates the statutory minimum of seven clear days. All consequential proceedings, including the 148 notice and reassessment, were quashed as non-est, while substantive additions were left open as academic.
