The ITAT held that reassessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee’s objections through a separate speaking order before completing reassessment. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment following the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
The dispute concerned deduction of CSR expenditure incurred before Explanation 2 to section 37(1) became applicable. The ITAT held that the contribution, made under Ministry of Shipping guidelines, was allowable for AY 2012-13. The decision emphasised that the statutory bar introduced from AY 2015-16 could not be applied retrospectively.
The ITAT held that relying on tally data and a forensic report without providing them to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer while retaining the commission rate at 0.15%.
The ITAT Pune held that Section 80-IAC does not require startups to complete three years before claiming the deduction. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction from the first eligible assessment year.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must implement the terms of the later APA covering royalty payments to the AE. The ruling required fresh effect to be given based on the modified return.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments must be based on international transactions and not entity-level figures. It remanded the matter after finding errors in the computation of the arm’s length price.
Expenditure of ₹4.49 crore incurred on maintenance dredging for removal of natural siltation and restoration of the existing operational depth of the jetty constituted revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1). Accordingly, the disallowance made by AO and sustained by CIT(A) was deleted.
The newly constructed storage tanks used for storing hazardous raw materials and finished products constituted an integral part of plant and machinery and were eligible for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Accordingly, the disallowance of ₹91.12 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment order making no new additions does not merge with the original assessment so as to permit challenge to issues accepted earlier. The original disallowance remained unaffected.
ITAT Delhi excluded three comparable companies after holding that they were functionally dissimilar and government-controlled enterprises. Their exclusion eliminated the transfer pricing adjustment on engineering design services.
