The ITAT Mumbai dismissed appeals under the Black Money Act as withdrawn after the assessee received full relief from the CIT(A), who deleted the additions on the merits of beneficial ownership. Since the Department did not challenge the relief, the assessee chose not to pursue the technical and jurisdictional grounds before the Tribunal.
The ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 211-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the delay was justified because the NFAC (CIT(A)) sent all crucial notices to incorrect email addresses. The Tribunal restored the appeal for fresh hearing, ruling that the ex parte dismissal violated the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
ITAT deleted a Rs.54.85 crore tax addition, holding that make available clause of the India’s DTAA was not satisfied because routine IT support did not enable Indian entity to apply technology without provider’s ongoing reliance. A key takeaway is that mere recurring service provision, even with technical input, does not constitute make available of know-how.
Pune ITAT ruled against adding the perquisite value of rent-free accommodation, finding that the amount was already included and taxed as part of the directors’ disclosed salary.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
The ITAT deleted the addition for cash deposits made during demonetization, concluding that taxing the same business receipts twice by first accepting sales and then applying Section 69A was unsustainable under the law.
Since Netflix India functioned solely as a limited-risk distributor of access, not as a licensee of content or technology, therfore, TNMM benchmarking was accepted, and the royalty-based TP adjustment of ₹444.93 crores was unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has duly discharged the primary onus. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment is invalid in as much as the approval/ sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act is granted in a mechanical manner. Further, reasons for reopening are based on on-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since specific limb of Section 270A(9) leading to under-reporting of income or mis-reporting of income is not specified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed.
