ITAT Delhi held that professional fees claimed for raising working capital limits could not be fully allowed as the taxpayer failed to establish their business relevance. However, considering the circumstances, only 50% of the expenditure was disallowed.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the disputed amounts represented sale proceeds already disclosed and offered to tax. The Tribunal ruled that no income had escaped assessment in such circumstances.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing analysis should focus on international transactions rather than entity-level profitability where segmental data is available. The case was remanded for fresh consideration of comparables and ALP determination.
The Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshold under the India-Canada DTAA. Consequently, income attribution to the alleged PE was held to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the CIT(A) must adjudicate issues through a speaking order. The matter was remanded while directing the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT Delhi held that no notional rent could be charged for the period during which unsold commercial units remained stock-in-trade. Notional rent, if any, could be computed only after conversion into investment property, with statutory deductions also being available.
The Tribunal observed that reliance on third-party statements without providing cross-examination rendered the additions legally unsustainable. The judgment highlights the procedural safeguards available to taxpayers in search-related proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an invalid Section 148 notice were void ab initio. It observed that where jurisdiction itself is lacking, the proper course is to annul the proceedings rather than remand the matter. The decision underscores the mandatory nature of statutory limitation periods.
The Tribunal held that an incomplete document recovered from an employee’s laptop could not justify an addition under Section 69 without supporting evidence. The absence of cross-examination and independent verification weighed against the Revenue.
The ITAT held that once registration under Section 12AB was ultimately granted on the basis of the original application, the doctrine of relating back applied. As a result, exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied for the relevant assessment year.
