ITAT Delhi partly allowed assessee’s appeal, reducing unexplained income from ₹10.08 crore to ₹2.22 crore and lowering commission on inter-mediated transactions from 3% to a fair 1%, emphasizing verification of cash and cheque entries under same code.
ITAT Amritsar condoned the 146-day delay in a senior citizen’s appeal, accepting passport evidence of her absence from India as sufficient cause, and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a CIT(A) order is not void simply because it names the deceased assessee. The Tribunal restored the case, directing the CIT(A) to admit evidence due to the assessee’s prior illness.
ITAT Pune upheld CIT(A)’s order restricting Hawala purchase additions to 15%, ruling that a typographical error does not warrant full disallowance.
ITAT Delhi held that sales made to Jyoti Products were genuine, supported by ledgers and invoices. The 25% disallowance by the AO under Section 37 was deleted, as Section 37 applies only to business expenditure, not sales transactions.
ITAT Kolkata held that the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses [AMP Expense] not an international transaction and accordingly, the TP adjustment made by Transfer Pricing Officer/ AO is to be deleted. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi held that the absence of office premises and expatriate activity meant the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal ruled that Revenue cannot rely solely on past orders without verifying current-year facts.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer of an undertaking under a court-approved scheme cannot be characterised as a slum sale within the meaning of section 2(42C) hence provisions of section 50B not attracted.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of principle of consistency. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
