The ITAT deleted the entire Rs.3.94 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, ruling that three companies involved in product development, distribution, and proprietary software (Kellton, Magnasoft, Interglobe) were functionally dissimilar to a captive software service provider.2 The Tribunal held that excluding these companies brought the assessees margin of within the Arms Length Price (ALP) range.
The AO passed a final assessment order without waiting for the DRP’s directions, even though the assessee had filed timely objections against the draft order. The ITAT ruled the final assessment was illegal and void ab initio because the AO violated Section 144C, and it remanded the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication on merits.
The AO mechanically reopened the case and made a 2.86 crore addition based only on an investigation alert, without being able to identify the alleged property. The ITAT upheld the quashing of the entire proceeding, ruling that simple reproduction of external information, without independent application of mind or tangible evidence, invalidates the reassessment notice.
The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 9.70 crore based solely on the uncorroborated statement of a seller recorded during a search. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that a bare Section 132(4) statement without any corroborative evidence (like seized material, book entries, or proof of delivery) is insufficient to prove the cash transaction against a third party.
Description: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of an Exemption-registered society that challenged its reassessment on the legal ground that the AO failed to issue a Section 143(2) notice. The ruling confirms that this notice is mandatory for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 143(3) read with 47, even if the return was filed belatedly.
The AO made massive ex-parte additions under Section 69A after the assessee failed to respond to notices sent to an incorrect email ID of his deceased former CA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication, utilizing the Finance Act 2024 amendment to Section 251, which grants the CIT(A) the power to remit Section 144 best judgment assessments.
The ITAT set aside a massive unexplained investment addition made on a joint bank account, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider vital documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case is remanded to the AO for fresh verification of the documents, which claim the deposits were company business, not personal income.
ITAT Lucknow held that rectification under Section 154 cannot be invoked when a trust deed does not specify beneficiaries’ shares. Since the shares were indeterminate, taxation at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164 was rightly applied.
Hyderabad ITAT ruled that the Rs.153C notice against VPR Mining for AY 2018-19 was void ab initio. The court held that without incriminating material pertaining to the relevant year, an assessment based solely on external GST data, independent of the original search and seizure, is invalid.
The ITAT confirmed the deletion of a ₹72 crore addition made under Section 143(1) by the CPC, which resulted from a tax auditor’s inadvertent reporting error in Form 3CD (using the opening instead of the closing inventory). The ruling established that the CIT(A) can directly verify evidence and grant relief for such genuine clerical mistakes without remanding the case to the AO.
