The ITAT held that Section 56(2)(viib) cannot apply where equity shares are issued upon conversion of CCDs without receipt of fresh consideration during the relevant year. The ruling emphasizes that the provision is triggered only upon actual receipt of share consideration.
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond four years cannot survive unless the Assessing Officer records that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. Since the recorded reasons contained no such allegation, the notice under Section 148 was declared invalid. The consequential reassessment order was quashed.
The Delhi ITAT held that unsigned reasons recorded for reopening assessment constituted a jurisdictional defect that invalidated the reassessment proceedings. The defect was not curable under Section 292B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that once Second Line Support services were examined and covered under an Advance Pricing Agreement, disallowance under Section 37(1) could not be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed without establishing a nexus between borrowed funds and non-business use. The absence of supporting evidence led to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after finding that transfer pricing adjustments may have been added twice while computing the assessee’s income. The issue requires fresh examination after granting an opportunity of hearing.
Delhi ITAT held that an assessment initiated through Section 153C proceedings could not be completed under Section 143(3). The Tribunal ruled that the resulting jurisdictional defect rendered the assessment invalid.
The Delhi ITAT held that rejection of books under Section 145(3) was unjustified where the tax authorities failed to identify specific discrepancies. The Tribunal deleted the profit estimation-based addition and emphasized the need for concrete defects before rejecting accounts.
The ITAT Delhi held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely relied on an investigation report without applying independent mind. The Tribunal ruled that such material did not establish a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that television channel and content owner companies could not be compared with a content distribution business. The Tribunal directed exclusion of such entities from the transfer pricing comparables list.
