The Tribunal held that the original assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial except for TDS verification and PF/ESI disallowance. The assessee’s claim under Section 10AA was rejected. Compliance with statutory deductions is critical for valid assessments.
ITAT Bangalore held that mere delay in filing the return of income cannot be construed as a violation so grave as to justify cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(4). Delay in return was unintentional hence cancellation of registration u/s. 12AA not justified.
ITAT held that bank deposits consistent with declared fruit business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68; the addition of ₹1.29 crore was directed to be treated as genuine receipts.
ITAT Bangalore set aside reassessment orders for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, ruling that failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act invalidates the proceedings.
The Tribunal examined alleged bogus payments to 27 sub-contractors treated as undisclosed income. While the Assessing Officer made large additions, the assessee provided affidavits confirming genuineness. The ruling partly allowed the appeals, stressing careful verification of evidence rather than assumptions.
The case examined whether the tax officer was justified in rejecting the assessee’s DCF-based share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that once DCF is chosen, the AO cannot switch to NAV merely because subsequent financials differ from projections
Tribunal held that civil, plumbing and electrical charges paid to builder formed part of the acquisition cost and allowed claim. It held that embedded fixtures qualify for deduction, while travel expenses unrelated to transfer do not.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits were fully recorded in audited accounts, making section 69A inapplicable. The addition was removed as no unexplained money was found.
Covers the Tribunal’s ruling upholding most TPO-selected comparables while excluding product-owning entities, clarifying how functional similarity drives benchmarking in software distribution.
The Tribunal held that granting only one day to reply to a show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice. The assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh examination.
