ITAT directed the AO/TPO to accept the corrected operating margins for comparables in the Business Support Services segment, specifically for Forbes Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal’s order rectifies computational errors and ensures that the benchmarking is based on correct financial data, allowing for proper recomputation of the ALP.
ITAT annulled an assessment and addition of $\text{Rs. }31.80$ crore of share capital made under Section 153C, ruling that the jurisdiction was invalid for an unabated assessment year. The key takeaway is that for an already completed assessment, the AO must rely on incriminating material found during the search, not mere statutory documents already in the books.
The ITAT ruled that Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) legally remain debt until conversion, rejecting the Transfer Pricing Officers (TPO) re-characterization of them as equity. The Tribunal quashed the Nil Arm’s Length Price (ALP) for associated interest and remanded the matter for fresh benchmarking.
ITAT upheld the deletion of a 25% bogus purchase addition, ruling that the AO cannot disallow purchases based merely on suspicion and circumstantial evidence when the audited books of account were not rejected. The key takeaway is that without finding defects or rejecting the books, and while accepting sales, disallowance of purchases is impermissible.
The issue was whether agricultural land compulsorily acquired in NOIDA was a taxable capital asset. The ITAT, relying on judicial precedent, ruled it was pure agricultural land and thus not taxable, rejecting the taxman’s attempt to treat the NOIDA area as a municipality.
ITAT Chennai held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be used to substitute the Assessing Officer’s view when proper enquiry was conducted. The AO’s acceptance of business loss and PF/ESI deductions was valid.
The ITAT held a reassessment under sections 144/147 void due to the absence of a mandatory 143(2) notice. Revenue’s claim that participation cures defects under 292BB was rejected, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory notice requirements.
The ITAT quashed an assessment where the taxpayer’s declared income exceeded the Rs.30 Lakh limit for an ITO in a metro city. Relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and Calcutta High Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that the assessment suffered from a lack of inherent jurisdiction and was void ab initio.
An assessment was quashed as the ACIT (a senior authority) issued the reassessment notice for an income below the Rs.15 Lakh limit, which was exclusively the ITO’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal affirmed that this jurisdictional defect is fatal and cannot be cured, following the Bombay High Court’s ruling.
The ITAT quashed a scrutiny assessment because the Rs.143(2) notice was issued by the ITO, a junior officer, despite the declared corporate income exceeding the Rs. 30 Lakh metro city limit. Jurisdiction for issuing the notice and conducting the assessment belonged solely to the DCIT, making the entire proceeding illegal.
