Mumbai ITAT held that no further profits can be attributed to a DAPE once the Indian agent is remunerated at arm’s length for all FAR functions. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s “double profit attribution” theory and deleted the enhanced PE addition.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiry or verification of creditors. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to sundry creditors and business transactions supported by documents and banking records.
Pune ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court ruling in Totgars does not apply to such claims.
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 ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in assessment or related proceedings. Since no assessment proceedings existed in the case, the penalty was held unsustainable in law.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized documents. The Tribunal ruled that absence of corroborative evidence, cash trail, or signed records makes such additions legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. It relied on CBDT Instruction prescribing monetary limits. The ruling highlights strict adherence to jurisdictional norms.
The Tribunal found that the transfer pricing adjustment was incorrectly computed using SEB sale rates. It allowed deduction based on consumer tariff rates. The decision clarifies benchmarking for captive consumption.
The issue involved estimation of income based solely on bank credits without supporting verification. The Tribunal remanded the case, directing assessment based on GST and VAT turnover.
The tribunal held that interest cannot be disallowed where advances to related parties are made for business purposes and out of own funds, emphasizing the principle of commercial expediency.
