ITAT ruled that determining the arm’s length price of management service fees at Nil without following a prescribed transfer pricing methodology was not sustainable. It upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting both the management fee and manufacturing segment adjustments.
The Allahabad High Court held that filing an appeal against an appellate order does not automatically stay its operation. It directed immediate restoration of GST registration in compliance with the appellate authority’s order.
The Court rejected the challenge to the search conducted under Section 132 and upheld the legality of the search proceedings. It, however, permitted affected petitioners to pursue compensation before the appropriate forum regarding the handling of a medical emergency during the search.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income exceeded the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The additions on merits were not examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2). As a result, the assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessments were invalid because the ACIT was not shown to have jurisdiction under CBDT Instructions or the Income-tax Act. The assessment orders were quashed without examining the merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous.
Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making disallowances beyond the selected issues without following the prescribed CBDT procedure. Such additions were held to be unsustainable.
The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatures without necessarily requiring expert evidence. It restored the Trial Courts decree after finding the comparison legally valid.
