The Tribunal ruled that addition of alleged undisclosed income could not be sustained merely on the basis of WhatsApp chats without supporting enquiry or evidence. It held that the department failed to establish any actual transaction involving the assessee.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that crucial JSK Server data, screenshots, and investigation records were never provided to the assessee. The ruling reiterates that additions based on undisclosed evidence violate principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that a company engaged in publishing platforms, software solutions, and product development could not be compared with a limited-risk captive ITES service provider. Exclusion of the comparable eliminated the transfer pricing adjustment.
Tribunal found the DRP’s order cryptic and lacking proper analysis on similarity of business activities between the assessee and selected comparables. Fresh examination was directed regarding comparability and ALP computation.
The ITAT Surat held that bank transactions reflected cheque discounting business activity and could not be fully treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Only estimated commission income and profit were sustained.
Assessee argued that conclusions drawn from a 2005 survey on liaison offices could not be applied mechanically to later branch office structure. ITAT directed fresh examination of branch office’s actual functions and activities.
ITAT ruled that although LTC exemption involving foreign travel stood disallowed by SC, such judgment could not retrospectively impose TDS default liability for periods covered by judicial interim protection.
Kolkata ITAT observed that suppressed turnover results in savings of rent, salary, and fixed expenses, warranting higher profit estimation, though not at the rate applied by the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT Chennai restored the assessment matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee’s condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was still pending. The Tribunal held that the decision on condonation directly affected eligibility for deduction under Section 80P.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 80JJAA could not be claimed where the business was acquired through amalgamation. The Tribunal held that transfer of assets, liabilities, and business operations constituted business reorganisation under the Act.
