ITAT Delhi held that transactions relating to currency swap contracts cannot be considered to be in the nature of speculative transaction covered u/s. 43(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
ITAT reversed the demand under Section 200A attributable to merely wrong mention of TAN in the TDS deposit challan
Where delay in filing TDS statements occurred as employees of assessee-bank were not well acquainted with procedure of e-filing of TDS return and also the bank in near past switched over itself from old system to CBS system and the employees were getting acquainted with the new banking software; it constituted a reasonable explanation under section 273B and hence, penalty levied under section 272A(2)(k) was liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order passed in the name of non-existent entity is equivalent to passing an order in the name of dead person, hence, is invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of difference between the share valued by the company and value determined as per IT Rules sustained as the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proof.
ITAT Delhi held that adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction is unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of job work expenses in absence of any culpable evidence, merely on the standalone base of non-compliance of summons served u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that approval granted under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act cannot be withdrawn on the allegation of violation of certain compliance conditions, once the threshold conditions is duly satisfied.
ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the basis of bald statement under section 153A of the Income Tax Act without any incriminating material is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that as per CBDT Instruction nos. 20/2015 and 5/2016 read with DGIT(Vigilance) letter dated 30th November, 2017 before venturing into other issues outside the scope of limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer should have taken prior approval of PCIT/CIT. Failure of prior approval would render the assessment order bad in law.
