The ITAT Delhi invalidated the reassessment proceedings against Huawei International, a Singapore resident, for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s attempt to investigate offshore software receipts, based merely.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justifiable when AO has taken most plausible view. Accordingly, appeal is allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a consultancy company with zero turnover could deduct necessary expenses, allowing the full Rs.8.66 lakh security charge as an establishment cost.
The ITAT Delhi set aside the CIT(A)’s order deleting a Rs.16.10 Cr unsecured loan addition against Nitin Garg, remanding the issue to the AO. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred by not requesting a remand report to verify the lender’s creditworthiness and the source of funds, despite the assessee’s non-compliance during assessment.
The ITAT Delhi ruled in DCIT Vs Jai Jai Ram Singh Infrastructure that shuttering material constitutes a homogenous ‘plant’ and not a ‘purely temporary erection.
It was held that regarding section 80-IA issue, Tribunal relied on its own earlier orders in assessees own cases for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17. It held that since the power plant was transferred as part of a court-approved amalgamation, the assessee was entitled to step into the shoes of the amalgamating company and claim the deduction.
The ITAT Rajkot confirmed the addition of Rs.3.99 crore to the income of Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. under Section 56(2)(viib), ruling that the company’s Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) share valuation was speculative, lacked empirical support for growth rates and terminal value, and failed to adhere to ICAI guidelines.
ITAT Ranchi quashes PCIT’s Section 263 order against a Co-operative Society (Chotanagpur Catholic Mission). Rules 80P deduction cannot be denied after AO’s thorough verification.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes Rs.8.14 lakh addition, ruling that AO’s estimation of agricultural expenses using an unrelated 40% benchmark was arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
ITAT Chennai sustains 50% disallowance of claimed agricultural income (Padam Kumar Vs DCIT). Holds land ownership alone doesn’t prove cultivation; evidence is necessary.
