Mumbai ITAT held that no addition under Section 43CA could survive where difference between agreement value and DVO valuation remained within 10% tolerance band. Tribunal ruled that safe harbour benefit applies once DVO valuation substitutes stamp duty value.
Tribunal ruled that objections relating to defective title, encroachments, and legal disputes require proper valuation examination through a DVO reference. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
ITAT Delhi ruled that where an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal set aside the capital gains addition for fresh determination.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments made for global brand, communications, and technology support services within the Deloitte network did not amount to royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that no transfer of copyright or intellectual property rights had taken place.
ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not on an unimplemented extension proposal. The Tribunal directed recomputation after recognizing termination of the agreement before 2024.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon write-back. The Tribunal ruled that such taxation would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that ad hoc disallowances based only on comparative analysis of turnover and expenditure are unsustainable without identifying defects in expense claims. The Tribunal deleted additions after finding that the assessee had submitted adequate supporting documents and explanations.
The ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required for constituting a Fixed Place PE under the India-Canada DTAA.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Income Tax Act does not bar a trust from filing a fresh Section 80G application merely because an earlier rejection was not challenged. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration after holding the “void-ab-initio” finding unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) after accepting the assessee’s explanations and returned income.
