The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous.
Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making disallowances beyond the selected issues without following the prescribed CBDT procedure. Such additions were held to be unsustainable.
The ITAT Delhi held that deduction of TDS by the payer does not by itself establish that income has accrued to the recipient. It ruled that income must be recognised based on the assessees accounting method and completion of services.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunals order, holding that acceptance of the assessees explanation on reconciliation of professional receipts did not raise any substantial question of law.
The ITAT Mumbai held that additions based solely on AIR information were unsustainable when the assessee had disclosed professional receipts higher than those reflected in the AIR and no contrary evidence was produced.
The ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing adjustments for intra-group services were unsustainable because the TPO determined the arms length price without applying any prescribed method under Section 92C. It directed deletion of the adjustments on this technical ground.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by producing confirmations, PAN, bank statements and income-tax records. The Revenue’s additions were deleted as no contrary evidence was produced.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s contention regarding ownership of the bank account required proper verification before sustaining the addition under Section 69A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note did not record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee’s total income. The assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note did not record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee’s total income. The assessment was consequently quashed.
