The Tribunal set aside the assessment after noting that books of accounts were not produced and required reconsideration. It directed a fresh decision with proper opportunity, emphasizing procedural fairness.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. Addition under Section 69A was deleted as the AO failed to rebut the explanation.
The tribunal ruled that reliance only on an investigation report without independent evidence cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Additions under Section 68 and commission were deleted.
The Tribunal held that industrial tariff charged by electricity boards is the correct benchmark for CPP transactions. It rejected the use of generator procurement rates adopted by the TPO.
ITAT Delhi held that companies owning and operating channels cannot be compared with distribution company for the purpose of transfer pricing. Accordingly, directs TPO to exclude such comparables for benchmarking distribution segment and determination of ALP.
The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues cannot be adjusted at the processing stage, resulting in relief to the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural boundaries.
The issue involved validity of penalty proceedings initiated through an unsigned notice. The Tribunal ruled that such a notice is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction. The decision highlights the mandatory requirement of proper authentication.
The case examined whether property registered in trustees’ names violated Section 13(1)(c). The Tribunal held no violation as no benefit accrued to trustees, allowing exemption under Section 11.
ITAT Mumbai held that payments made to third-party vendors on a cost-to-cost basis, without any value addition by the assessee, should be treated as pass-through costs and excluded from PLI computation.
The Tribunal held that consolidated Excel entries showing aggregate cash sales were insufficient to establish receipt of ₹2 lakh or more in a single transaction, and penalty under Section 271DA could not be sustained.
