The capital-gains addition of ₹4.02 crore arose from 143(1) but was included in the 143(3) scrutiny assessment. ITAT directed CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring the assessee’s rights during scrutiny are protected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the penalty appeal solely due to VSVS settlement of interest, without adjudicating the depreciation-related penalty. Key takeaway: all grounds must be decided on merits even when only part of the quantum is settled.
The AO changed the charge from bogus payments to 69A ‘Unaccounted Sales’ without issuing a fresh notice, denying the assessee a proper hearing. ITAT remanded the matter for verification of documentary evidence including invoices, GST returns, and e-way bills.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted Rs. 10.84 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had properly documented loans and repayments. Key takeaway: Genuineness of transactions with third-party entities can neutralize claims of unexplained credits.
The Tribunal held that several comparables selected by the tax authorities failed the RPT filter and were functionally dissimilar, warranting exclusion. It ordered verification, directed inclusion of suitable event-management comparables, and remanded the interest-on-receivables and ICDS issues for fresh review.
The Tribunal held that the ₹2.5 Cr flat investment was fully explained through agreement details and a DHFL housing loan, leaving no basis for an addition. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was remanded for fresh examination since the foundation for concealment no longer survived.
The assessee’s plea that delayed PF/ESI deduction was a debatable issue was rejected because Checkmate had settled the law retrospectively. The key takeaway is that once the Supreme Court clarifies the law, CPC may apply it through 143(1)(a) adjustments based on audit disclosures.
Covers the Tribunal’s ruling upholding most TPO-selected comparables while excluding product-owning entities, clarifying how functional similarity drives benchmarking in software distribution.
The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment since the assessee had transparently disclosed impairment, CENVAT credit treatment, and revenue recognition. It ruled that Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely because the AO made additions.
ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) wrongly treated the DVO’s report as binding and failed to independently scrutinize comparables, methodology, and objections. Key takeaway: the first appellate authority must evaluate the DVO’s report on merits and issue a speaking order.
