ITAT Ahmedabad held that a taxpayer cannot avoid responsibility for earlier failures to respond merely because the final notice was sent to a different email address. However, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The ITAT found inconsistencies in the selection and rejection of comparable companies for determining the arm’s length price of international transactions. It directed inclusion and exclusion of specific comparables and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation on goodwill cannot be allowed when the goodwill arises from an unsigned and unregistered Business Transfer Agreement. The Tribunal found that such an agreement lacked legal sanctity and evidentiary value.
ITAT Bangalore sustained a ₹47.07 lakh addition under Section 68 after the assessee failed to substantiate cash deposits with documentary evidence. The absence of cash books, sales records, and supporting documents proved fatal to the claim.
The Tribunal held that compensatory interest under Section 234B could not be charged when seized cash exceeding the tax liability was already in Revenue’s possession. It directed complete deletion of the interest.
ITAT Delhi sustained a Section 69A addition on demonetisation-period cash deposits after finding 539 identical cash sale vouchers lacked credibility. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily establish the genuineness of the sales and deposits.
The ITAT Mumbai restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had not explained the source of investments in deposits and foreign currency purchases. Fresh adjudication was directed after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Delhi held that a concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where the addition is based on estimation of gross profit. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
The Delhi ITAT upheld the addition of deemed house property income after finding that the assessee failed to support his claims with evidence. The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s factual findings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had incorrectly applied the principle relating to assessments of non-existent entities without examining the factual circumstances of the firm’s conversion into a proprietorship. The matter was remanded for further inquiry.
