The tribunal considered whether inconsistent explanations alone justify treating cash deposits as unexplained income. It held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and additions require proper investigation.
The tribunal examined whether the reasons given for late filing of the appeal were sufficient. It ruled that routine administrative workload and grievance handling cannot explain a substantial delay.
The tribunal considered whether CPC could rely solely on the original tax audit report to make an adjustment. It held that corrections through revised reports and financial records must be examined before sustaining an addition.
The case involved CPC adjustment denying deduction for employees’ PF contribution deposited after statutory due dates. The tribunal ruled that before the Supreme Court’s later decision, the issue was debatable and could not be adjusted under Section 143(1).
The ITAT Ahmedabad cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication, holding that penalty based on the original order cannot survive once the assessment itself is reopened.
The Tribunal held that approval granted under Section 153D without application of mind was invalid. As a result, search assessments framed under Section 153C for multiple years were quashed.
The ITAT Indore held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot survive where the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) after considering the taxpayer’s delayed submissions, as such compliance effectively condones earlier defaults.
The Tribunal ruled that a Dependent Agent PE arises only if agents habitually conclude contracts or secure orders on behalf of the foreign enterprise. Since no such evidence existed, the foreign company’s income from software sales was not taxable in India.
ITAT Delhi held that Oracle India Private Limited is an independent legal entity and existence of Oracle India Private Limited cannot be considered as permanent establishment of Oracle Systems Corporation. Hence, there is not question of attribution of profit to Permanent Establishment.
ITAT held that the appellate authority wrongly dismissed the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) as there was no advance tax liability under Section 209. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
