ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Sections 68 and 69C could not be sustained where the Revenue relied only on generalized investigation findings. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the assessee to any accommodation entry arrangement and deleted both additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had fully explained the source of investment through bank records showing direct payment by her father. The addition under Section 69 was deleted as unsupported by evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A must be computed only with reference to investments that actually yielded exempt income. The Tribunal also deleted interest disallowance after finding that the assessee’s interest-free funds exceeded its investments.
The ITAT held that FTC cannot be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date. It ruled that the filing requirement is procedural and does not extinguish the taxpayer’s substantive right to foreign tax credit.
CESTAT held that where the value of goods sent for job work had already been considered for credit reversal purposes, including it again would amount to impermissible double counting.
CESTAT Chennai found that the Department’s case was based on an allegation that manpower services were used exclusively for insurance and mutual fund activities. The Tribunal held that the services were actually used across multiple business verticals, making the denial of CENVAT credit unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore restored the issue of consultancy fee deduction to the Assessing Officer after noting that additional evidence relating to services rendered had not been examined. The Tribunal directed a fresh review of the expenditure claim in light of the new material.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to meet export obligations under the EPCG Scheme does not automatically justify confiscation where there is no diversion or misuse of capital goods.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). The ruling reiterates that an ambiguous penalty notice can invalidate penalty proceedings.
ITAT held that reimbursement of salary costs of seconded employees could not be treated as Fees for Technical Services where the Indian company exercised exclusive control and supervision. The Tribunal found a clear employer-employee relationship during the secondment period and deleted the addition.
