ITAT Mumbai held that an addition based solely on a builder’s statement could not survive without evidence directly linking the assessee to the alleged cash payment. The ₹4 lakh addition was deleted for lack of corroboration.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on an investigation report without applying independent mind. The Tribunal ruled that such material did not establish a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that television channel and content owner companies could not be compared with a content distribution business. The Tribunal directed exclusion of such entities from the transfer pricing comparables list.
ITAT Mumbai held that distribution fees paid to associated enterprises could not be treated as royalty. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions and directed fresh transfer pricing analysis based on proper comparables.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced complete evidence proving allotment, holding, dematerialization, and sale of shares through the BSE. Since the Revenue failed to disprove these documents or establish any manipulation by the assessee, the LTCG exemption could not be denied. The additions under Section 68 and for alleged commission were deleted.
TAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue failed to establish any connection between the assessee and alleged price-rigging operators. The Tribunal found that the transactions were supported by demat records, banking documents, and stock exchange evidence. The LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) was restored.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the order deleting the addition made on account of alleged unexplained cash credits arising from share sale proceeds. The Revenues challenge against the relief granted to the assessee was rejected.
GSTAT accepted the DGAP finding that the ratio of credit availed to purchase value declined after GST implementation. Since no additional ITC benefit accrued, no profiteering was established.
GSTAT held that the retailer failed to pass on the benefit of GST reduction from 28% to 18% through commensurate price cuts. The Tribunal directed deposit of ₹13.61 crore in Consumer Welfare Funds.
The dispute centred on whether the airport taxi operator had exclusive control over transportation services. The Commission relied on the licence agreement’s non-exclusivity clause and found no prima facie abuse of dominant position.
