The ITAT held that reimbursement of travel and conveyance expenses to foreign associated enterprises was not liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). It followed its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The ITAT upheld deletion of a ₹6.25 crore addition after finding that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels and supported by documentary evidence. It held that the assessee had established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders.
Tribunal held that final assessment order was time-barred because it was passed after mandatory period prescribed under Section 144C(13). Assessment was set aside, making remaining transfer pricing issues academic.
The ITAT held that a transfer pricing order issued without authentication or a digital signature is invalid in law. Consequently, it quashed the ₹85 crore transfer pricing adjustment and allowed the assessee’s appeals.
ITAT Delhi held that where the variation between the issue price and fair market value is within the 10% safe harbour under Rule 11UA, the issue price is deemed to be the FMV. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was therefore deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer without a valid transfer order under Section 127 rendered the assessment invalid. The assessment was quashed without examining the merits.
The ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was adequately explained through instrument charges consistently disclosed in earlier years. It deleted the addition under Section 69A after finding the source of cash established.
The ITAT held that advertisement and brand promotion expenses incurred by the distributor were for its own business and were not shown to have been reimbursed by the principal company. It upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 37(1).
The ITAT held that the royalty and FTS adjustment was excessive and directed the Assessing Officer to apply the 1.9% rate accepted by the CBDT under the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement. It treated the APA principles as having persuasive value for determining the arm’s length price.
The ITAT Delhi held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from export of services must be treated as operating income for transfer pricing purposes. It also ruled that the Safe Harbour Rules were not applicable to the relevant assessment year.
