ITAT Mumbai held that although foreign commission expenditure was non-genuine and liable for disallowance, amounts already written back and taxed in a subsequent year could not again be taxed through disallowance in earlier years.
ITAT Chennai held that before the 2016 amendment, DSIR approval under Section 35(2AB) related to the in-house R&D facility and not yearly expenditure quantification. The Tribunal upheld full weighted deduction despite partial approval in Form 3CL.
The ITAT Surat remanded a case involving a Rs.30 lakh gift treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to submit bank records and explain the source of the gift.
ITAT Delhi held that a satisfaction note under Section 153C must clearly state how seized material bears on the assessee’s income determination. The Tribunal quashed the assessments after finding the statutory requirement was not properly recorded.
Kolkata ITAT upheld deletion of addition relating to alleged bogus penny stock loss after finding that the assessee had furnished contract notes, demat records, broker statements, and bank documents supporting the transactions.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that transfer of professional fees between branches through journal entries did not attract TDS liability. The Tribunal accepted ICAI records confirming the existence of the Ahmedabad branch.
Mumbai ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter relating to TDS on payments to Facebook Netherlands was remanded for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Raipur held that additions for cessation of liability cannot be made merely because creditor confirmations were not filed when PAN details, ledger accounts, and other records were already submitted.
The Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactions are functionally similar. The decision emphasized consistency and the lack of separate benchmarking by the TPO.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that the statutory conditions under Section 153C were not properly satisfied. It held that defective recording of satisfaction vitiated the entire proceedings against the third party assessee.
