The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure without adequately verifying the records or confronting the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry provider. It upheld the deletion of the Section 69A addition for lack of supporting evidence.
The ITAT held that estimating profit at 8% on deposits in undisclosed bank accounts was excessive considering the nature and margins of the electronics trading business. It reduced the estimated net profit rate to 3%.
ITAT Guwahati held that additions could not be sustained where the transactions related to a separate partnership firm with a different PAN and different partners. The Tribunal deleted the additions due to lack of evidence linking those transactions to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that where the variation between the issue price and fair market value is within the 10% safe harbour under Rule 11UA, the issue price is deemed to be the FMV. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was therefore deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer without a valid transfer order under Section 127 rendered the assessment invalid. The assessment was quashed without examining the merits.
The ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was adequately explained through instrument charges consistently disclosed in earlier years. It deleted the addition under Section 69A after finding the source of cash established.
The ITAT held that advertisement and brand promotion expenses incurred by the distributor were for its own business and were not shown to have been reimbursed by the principal company. It upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 37(1).
The ITAT held that Section 50C only substitutes the sale consideration for capital gains computation and does not prohibit deduction of the indexed cost of improvement. The matter was remanded only to verify the amount claimed.
The ITAT held that the royalty and FTS adjustment was excessive and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the 1.9% rate accepted by the CBDT under the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement. It treated the APA principles as having persuasive value for determining the arm’s length price.
