Mumbai ITAT observed that assessable value under customs law may differ from invoice value and such variation by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69C without further evidence.
The ITAT Surat held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already conducted inquiries and examined relevant records. Mere discrepancies in Insight Portal GST data were held insufficient to render the assessment order erroneous.
ITAT Surat restored reassessment appeals to the CIT(A) after observing that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal imposed costs due to partial compliance before the appellate authority.
Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
Lucknow ITAT held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt dividend income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the actual exempt income amount.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should reconsider the matter after the jurisdictional High Court decides pending cases concerning alleged bogus purchase bills by rice millers.
Tribunal ruled that once DSIR certifies R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB), the Assessing Officer cannot disregard the claim without following the statutory procedure. The decision reinforces the importance of DSIR certification in weighted deduction disputes.
The Jodhpur ITAT condoned a 30-day delay in filing an income tax appeal after holding that the delay fell within the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exemption period. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Delhi ITAT held that advertisement and marketing expenses could not be treated as an international transaction without evidence of an arrangement with the associated enterprise. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and rejected the application of the Bright Line Test.
The Jodhpur ITAT held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive where the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) after considering replies and documents furnished later by the assessee.
