Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
Tribunal ruled that once DSIR certifies R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB), the Assessing Officer cannot disregard the claim without following the statutory procedure. The decision reinforces the importance of DSIR certification in weighted deduction disputes.
The Delhi ITAT held that advertisement and marketing expenses could not be treated as an international transaction without evidence of an arrangement with the associated enterprise. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and rejected the application of the Bright Line Test.
The Delhi ITAT held that informal WhatsApp conversations without corroborative evidence cannot establish unexplained investment under Section 69A. Since no excess jewellery, invoices, or payment proof were found, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessee cannot be taxed on excess income wrongly declared in the return due to inadvertent error. The Tribunal deleted the Section 69A addition after accepting agricultural income evidence.
The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of declaration, not the original assessment year. The reassessment addition for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that once income higher than the presumptive rate under Section 44AD was declared, the assessee was not required to maintain detailed books or expense records. The addition based on estimated expenditure was deleted.
The ITAT Delhi held that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the assessee’s submissions and documentary evidence in a Section 54F dispute. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing opportunity.
ITAT Delhi held that MAT provisions under Section 115JB cannot apply once a company validly opts for concessional taxation under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal also relied on consistency as the department had accepted the option in earlier years.
ITAT Delhi held that territorial jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer handling the assessment. Since the assessee’s jurisdiction lay in Agra, the Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal.
