ITAT Delhi held that comparable controlled transaction cannot be taken as comparable to benchmark the international transaction. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment in respect of international transaction towards payment of royalty deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that a seized document mentioning ₹18 lakh could not, without corroboration, be treated as undisclosed income of Krishna Gopal Saraf, deleting the addition.
ITAT Delhi allowed Ekalavya Gift Galleries Pvt. Ltd.’s appeals, holding that share capital and premium received from investors were properly explained and not taxable under section 68.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹1.11 crore addition, holding that ordinary dunnage used by Central Warehousing Corporation is a revenue expense, following rulings from earlier years.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot discard a registered valuer’s report without referring the matter to a Departmental Valuation Officer. The AO’s addition was set aside, and the fair market value must be recomputed based on the valuer’s report.
The Tribunal found that CAM payments are contractual in nature and not for use of property, making 2% TDS deduction under Section 194C appropriate.
ITAT Delhi ruled that a reassessment notice served under Section 148 on a foreign FPI (Singapore company) after its formal dissolution is void ab initio. This decision confirms that proceedings against a non-existent entity, even if served shortly after winding up, are invalid and cannot be cured by Section 292B.
The ITAT Delhi deleted additions made under Section 153A for unabated/completed assessment years (AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17) following a search. The ruling strictly applied the Supreme Court’s mandate in Abhisar Buildwell that additions in completed years require the finding of incriminating material during the search.
Delhi ITAT held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made without Assessing Officer recording satisfaction about correctness of assessee’s claim. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, ₹25.06 lakh disallowance was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that trade scheme payment to sales promoters whether pure reimbursement or not needs proper verification and since AO granted relief without proper verification and application of mind, PCIT rightly invoked revisionary proceedings u/s. 263.
