ITAT Cochin held that since loans and advances are denominated in foreign currency, LIBOR Rates would be more suitable for benchmarking. Accordingly, AO directed to benchmark the international transaction of loan/advances to Associated Enterprise using applicable LIBOR Rate.
ITAT Indore held that delay of 560 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) rightly not condoned as assessee has failed to give satisfactory and bonafide explanation. Accordingly, delay not condoned as no sufficient cause shown.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 68 cannot be sustained merely on statements recorded during a third-party survey under section 133A. In absence of independent enquiry, corroborative evidence, or cross-examination, such statements have no evidentiary value.
The Tribunal examined whether tax was short-deducted on remittances to non-resident shareholders. It held that TDS at 11.54%, derived from the concessional 10% rate under section 112 with surcharge and cess, was legally correct and no default arose.
The issue was whether an Assessing Officer can travel beyond limited scrutiny without mandatory approval. The Tribunal held that such action violates binding CBDT Instructions and renders the assessment void from inception
ITAT Mumbai ruled that ancillary software support services did not constitute FTS under the India–Singapore DTAA, deleting a ₹482.77 crore addition due to failure of the make available test.
Delhi ITAT held that a bank’s valuation report obtained post-search is not incriminating material, restricting unexplained investment addition to a reasonable estimate.
The Tribunal held that while section 14A applies to partnership investments, disallowance cannot exceed the amount excluded from total income. Excess Rule 8D disallowance was therefore restricted to the partnership loss.
ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 69C cannot be made if the AO exceeds the scope of directions issued under Section 263, emphasizing procedural compliance.
The ITAT condoned a two-day delay caused by OTP and system issues, noting the Revenue’s failure to rebut the explanation. The ruling affirms a pragmatic approach to minor procedural lapses.
