The issue was whether penalty for misreporting could be levied when income was disclosed but offered under an incorrect head. The Tribunal held that such a classification dispute does not amount to misreporting and deleted the penalty.
ITAT held that arm’s length price for electricity supplied to related entities must be benchmarked against the gross tariff charged by the State Electricity Authority. Excluding mandatory charges distorts comparability and is impermissible.
Hyderabad ITAT held that even a delayed return filed during assessment is valid, and absence of mandatory Section 143(2) notice renders the entire assessment void.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest paid on account of delayed remittance of TDS cannot be treated as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order disallowing the same is upheld.
ITAT Hyderabad held LIBOR + 200 basis points is an appropriate rate of interest on outstanding trade receivables interest of bank short term deposit rate. Accordingly, TPO directed to compute interest on outstanding receivables by applying LIBOR + 200 basis points.
The Tribunal held that section 269SS targets cash advances in property transactions. Cash received at the time of registration was found to be outside its scope.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money towards bogus long term capital gains not sustained since assessee has proved the genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares as ordinary investor.
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed after the expiry of Section 153 is invalid, even if it follows DRP directions. The is that limitation under Section 153 remains mandatory and cannot be bypassed through the DRP route.
