The ITAT held that a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 80-IA(10) cannot be sustained without proving the statutory conditions, including close connection, arranged business transactions, and more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment for lack of foundational evidence.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal as time-barred despite a condonation application being on record. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
The ITAT Ahmedabad admitted additional evidence relating to foreign remittances and restored the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication. It held that the documents were necessary for proper determination of the issues.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that unexplained investment under Section 69 can be taxed only in the year the investment is actually made. Since the property payments were made in an earlier financial year, the additions for A.Y. 2016-17 were deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹61.22 crore after finding the facts identical to an earlier assessment year. It held that a pending High Court appeal does not dilute the binding nature of an unreversed Tribunal decision.
ITAT ruled that determining the arm’s length price of management service fees at Nil without following a prescribed transfer pricing methodology was not sustainable. It upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting both the management fee and manufacturing segment adjustments.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the Income Tax Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction where the returned income exceeded the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. The additions on merits were not examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 143(2). As a result, the assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the reassessment was invalid because the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and completed the assessment without lawful transfer of the case. The reassessment order was set aside.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessments were invalid because the ACIT was not shown to have jurisdiction under CBDT Instructions or the Income-tax Act. The assessment orders were quashed without examining the merits.
