The ITAT Mumbai set aside the CIT(A) order after finding that crucial survey findings and Tally data relating to accommodation entries were not properly examined. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh examination of the transactions and related evidence.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening invalid when based on existing records and no failure of disclosure.
The court examined whether reassessment could proceed without any incriminating material from search. It held that absence of such material vitiates jurisdiction, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The court held that expenditure on replacement of independent machinery cannot be treated as revenue when it results in a new asset or advantage. It set aside the Tribunal’s order for relying on a precedent later overturned by the Supreme Court and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The issue was whether high-turnover companies can be compared with a smaller software service provider. The Tribunal held that companies with disproportionately large turnover must be excluded as they distort comparability due to scale advantages.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under section 148 beyond the six-year limitation under the old law is invalid. It clarified that the first proviso to section 149 bars such reopening even under the amended regime.
The Court held that Tribunal remand is not a fresh reference under transfer pricing law. Hence, limitation expired earlier, entitling the assessee to refund.
The Court held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating, non-existent entity is void. It ruled that system glitches cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
ITAT Panaji refused to condone an 803-day delay in filing appeals against TDS default orders. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation and therefore dismissed the appeals as time-barred.
