The ITAT Surat remanded a case involving a Rs.30 lakh gift treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to submit bank records and explain the source of the gift.
ITAT Delhi held that a satisfaction note under Section 153C must clearly state how seized material bears on the assessee’s income determination. The Tribunal quashed the assessments after finding the statutory requirement was not properly recorded.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a GST assessment order issued under Section 62 stood automatically withdrawn after the taxpayer filed pending returns with tax, interest, and late fee.
Kolkata ITAT upheld deletion of addition relating to alleged bogus penny stock loss after finding that the assessee had furnished contract notes, demat records, broker statements, and bank documents supporting the transactions.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that transfer of professional fees between branches through journal entries did not attract TDS liability. The Tribunal accepted ICAI records confirming the existence of the Ahmedabad branch.
The Delhi High Court held that consultancy and recruitment support services provided to foreign universities qualify as export of services under GST. The Court ruled that incidental involvement of Indian students does not convert such services into intermediary services.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court ruling that approval stating fit case for reopening satisfied Section 151 requirements. The reassessment proceedings linked to alleged accommodation entries were restored.
Mumbai ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter relating to TDS on payments to Facebook Netherlands was remanded for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Raipur held that additions for cessation of liability cannot be made merely because creditor confirmations were not filed when PAN details, ledger accounts, and other records were already submitted.
The Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactions are functionally similar. The decision emphasized consistency and the lack of separate benchmarking by the TPO.
