ITAT Delhi held that while selecting the comparables transactions or entities, in case of international transactions, the basis should be one of similarity with the control transactions/entities and mere broad similarity is not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that approval granted under Section 153D without application of mind was invalid. As a result, search assessments framed under Section 153C for multiple years were quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that a Dependent Agent PE arises only if agents habitually conclude contracts or secure orders on behalf of the foreign enterprise. Since no such evidence existed, the foreign company’s income from software sales was not taxable in India.
ITAT Delhi held that Oracle India Private Limited is an independent legal entity and existence of Oracle India Private Limited cannot be considered as permanent establishment of Oracle Systems Corporation. Hence, there is not question of attribution of profit to Permanent Establishment.
ITAT Delhi deleted additions under Sections 68 and 69C after finding that the assessee received and repaid loans through banking channels with supporting confirmations and evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that a trust registered under Section 10(23C)(iv) was required to file Form 10BB instead of Form 10B. The Tribunal restored exemption after finding that denial by CPC under Section 143(1) was incorrect.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings are invalid when notice under Section 148 is issued in the name of a company that had already converted into an LLP. The Tribunal ruled that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void in law.
The Tribunal removed the transfer pricing addition on delayed receivables from associated enterprises, holding that the company’s profit margins exceeded comparable companies and interest was already embedded in pricing.
The Tribunal ruled that exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied by aggregating separate shareholdings to invoke Section 13(2)(e). It held that no office bearer individually held substantial interest, making the addition unsustainable.
