The Mumbai ITAT upheld the deletion of a disallowance for bad debts, confirming that deductions under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are independent. The ruling followed the Supreme Court’s precedent, allowing the entire bad debt written off since no double deduction was claimed.
ITAT Lucknow set aside a PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling it was void due to a violation of natural justice. The PCIT used external adverse material (alleging shell company purchases) against the assessee without providing a chance for rebuttal or considering evidence already filed, making the order invalid.
The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
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.
