ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest expense by treating the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act needs re-verification. Accordingly, matter send back to the file of jurisdictional AO.
ITAT Allahabad held that on account of inadvertent error in reporting by the tax auditor in form 3 CD this addition has been made while framing the assessment order u/s 143(1) by CPC, Bangalore, which is system oriented. Thus, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
Disallowance on dividend income claimed by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance was deleted as Section 44, being a non-obstante clause, overrides the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing income for life insurance companies.
TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustments of INR 1,03,26,939/-. According to TPO, appellant had advance funds to its AE [i.e. Golden Harvest Middle East (FZC)] under the grab of share application money and there was inordinate delay in allotment of shares.
Assessee was in the business of construction and in developing housing complexes i.e to construct the property and sell it therefore, unsold flats held as stock-in-trade should be treated as business stock, not income from house property.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order without mandatory service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is unjustified. Accordingly, assessment order being passed sans serving notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the TP assessment carried out by the TPO proceeded on the basis of incorrect appreciation of nature of services availed by the assessee from its AE. Thus, issue of determination of ALP of transactions with AE restored back to TPO.
Assessee was engaged in business activities requiring the use of Information Technology ( IT ) equipment, claimed depreciation at the rate of 60% on certain computer peripherals like printers, routers, and similar devices while computing its income.
Sales and marketing services rendered to assessee by its US based subsidiary did not fall within the ambit of FTS as defined u/s 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of India-US DTAA as making available service did not make available knowledge, experience, skill etc.
ITAT Mumbai held that unreasoned order confirming addition passed ex-parte is against the principal of natural justice and hence the matter is restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
