In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act and, therefore, could not have been added back to the book profits under Section 115JB.
In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information which prompted to the AO to proceed to issue notice u/s. 148 of and hence, the reassessment proceedings could not be declared as null and void.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of ITO vs. Ms. Khalil M. Bharwani that the whole transaction of purchase and sale of shares giving rise to long term capital gain has been duly explained step by step and supported by adequate and reliable evidence.
Kolkata ITAT held In the case of Sri Manoj Murarka vs. ACIT that the AO had travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested on him by the order of the CIT u/s 263 by treating the amounts overdrawn by the son and daughter of the assessee thereby bringing the same to tax as deemed dividend.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Kapoor Singh vs. ACIT that the assessee has not disputed the bank pass book of Shri Sube Singh which was found at his residence during search and seizure operation, neither has he controverted the AO’s finding to the statement of the Bank Manager given in writing that most of the payments have been made by Shri Kapoor Singh and his sons.
The assessee, a Branch of Canara Bank, made interest payment of Rs.201,000,000/- to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (herewith ‘NOIDA’), a creation of the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, without withholding any tax at source.
In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that as there is no change in the facts for the instant assessment year, the AO/DRP is directed to include EDCIL (the company excluded by TPO) in the final set of comparable companies.
In the case of M/s DDRC SRL Diagnostic P Ltd. Vs. ITO Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that If the hospitals/laboratories act as mere link between the assessee and patients, then the discount given by the assessee would definitely fall under the category of Commission liable for deduction u/s 194H of the Act.
In the case of M/s Chhaganlal Khimji & Co. Vs. ACIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A when there is no exempt income. ITAT relied upon the judgments of various courts in coming to the conclusion.
Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- ITO (ITAT Delhi) There is no tangible material, which come to the possession of the AO to lead to the conclusion that there was an escapement of income from assessment.
