The issue involved restriction of TDS credit due to mismatch between Form 26AS and return. ITAT held that such adjustments require verification and cannot be made under Section 143(1).
The issue was whether a fresh registration application can be rejected due to prior denial. ITAT held that earlier rejection does not bar reconsideration if conditions are fulfilled.
The tribunal addressed whether delay in filing appeals due to procedural difficulties justified condonation. It held that genuine hardship caused by PAN mismatch and filing issues constituted sufficient cause, allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the penalty matter as the quantum addition was sent back to the AO. It held that penalty must follow the outcome of reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the higher 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot apply to transactions prior to 01.04.2017. It directed application of 30%, reinforcing that amendments apply prospectively.
ITAT Mumbai held that with respect to benchmarking of export transaction, foreign Associated Enterprise [AE] can be chosen as tested party since AE possess the least complex functional analysis. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment not justifiable.
ITAT Delhi held that granting of mandatory approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in a mechanical manner and without due application of mind is an empty ritual. Thus, order held void-abinitio for want of valid approval u/s. 153D.
The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked when investments are recorded and taxed, upholding deletion of additions.
ITAT Delhi held that Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion expense [AMP expense] incurred by Make My Trip wholly and exclusively for the business is not capital in nature. Further, since AMP expense is not an international transaction, adjustment by TPO rightly deleted.
ITAT Pune held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on audit objection is merely change of opinion and the same is impermissible in law. Accordingly, notice issued u/s. 148 is not valid and is liable to be quashed.
