The ITAT Delhi held that contractual receipts reflected in the PAN of a dissolved partnership firm could not be taxed again when they were already disclosed in the proprietorship concern of the surviving partner. The Tribunal ruled that such addition would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Indore set aside the ex parte appellate order after noting that the assessee had died and the legal heirs could not effectively pursue the proceedings. The Tribunal granted one final opportunity for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT Delhi held that the upload date of DRP directions on the ITBA portal must be considered for computing limitation under Section 144C(13). Since the final assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed period, the assessment was quashed as time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that amounts received from encashment of bank guarantees could not be treated as taxable income where the assessee acted only as custodian of government money. The Tribunal followed earlier rulings in the assessee’s own case and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Mumbai ITAT held that no further profits can be attributed to a DAPE once the Indian agent is remunerated at arm’s length for all FAR functions. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s “double profit attribution” theory and deleted the enhanced PE addition.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiry or verification of creditors. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to sundry creditors and business transactions supported by documents and banking records.
Pune ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court ruling in Totgars does not apply to such claims.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the CIT(A) order after finding that crucial survey findings and Tally data relating to accommodation entries were not properly examined. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh examination of the transactions and related evidence.
The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in assessment or related proceedings. Since no assessment proceedings existed in the case, the penalty was held unsustainable in law.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized documents. The Tribunal ruled that absence of corroborative evidence, cash trail, or signed records makes such additions legally unsustainable.
