The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an ₹80 lakh addition after holding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender companies. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot rest solely on suspicion of circular transactions without corroborative evidence.
ITAT Chennai held that Assessing Officer should have allowed 200% weighted deduction on DSIR-certified capital expenditure under section 35(2AB). It also directed verification of uncertified scientific research expenditure for deduction under section 35(1)(iv).
The Delhi High Court held that borrowing funds to repay an earlier loan falls within the assessee’s commercial wisdom. It upheld the allowance of related expenditure and dismissed the Department’s appeal.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition seeking action on an alleged tax evasion complaint, holding that no case for issuing a writ of mandamus was made out at that stage. It found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand order after finding that notices were uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the prescribed tab. The Court directed issuance of a fresh notice with at least 15 clear days’ notice.
The ITAT held that a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 80-IA(10) cannot be sustained without proving the statutory conditions, including close connection, arranged business transactions, and more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment for lack of foundational evidence.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal as time-barred despite a condonation application being on record. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
The ITAT Ahmedabad admitted additional evidence relating to foreign remittances and restored the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication. It held that the documents were necessary for proper determination of the issues.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that unexplained investment under Section 69 can be taxed only in the year the investment is actually made. Since the property payments were made in an earlier financial year, the additions for A.Y. 2016-17 were deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹61.22 crore after finding the facts identical to an earlier assessment year. It held that a pending High Court appeal does not dilute the binding nature of an unreversed Tribunal decision.
