The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not examine or reason with respect to substantial documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure proper evaluation of bank statements, ledger entries, and receipts.
ITAT condones delay in filing appeal as the assessee’s police duties prevented timely submission, restoring the matter for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that a captive software development service provider cannot be compared with giant IT companies owning IP, diversified services, and global operations. By excluding these functionally dissimilar comparables, the entire ₹10.58 crore TP adjustment was deleted.
Smt. Vijaya Kanika Tirupati Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Reassessment Notice by JAO Held Invalid as CBDT Faceless Scheme was Mandatory Hyderabad Tribunal considered the legal ground challenging validity of notice issued u/s 148. Assessee submitted that both order u/s 148A(d) dated 23.03.2023 & notice u/s 148 issued on same date were passed by JAO, even […]
The Tribunal found that the assessee’s audited accounts, finalized before demonetisation, clearly established sufficient cash balance to cover the ₹14 lakh deposit. Since Revenue produced no evidence of inflation or manipulation, the addition under Section 69A could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in refusing to consider the USAID–AE agreement, which directly established the back-to-back cost-plus-6% model. It ruled that such crucial evidence cannot be dismissed on a procedural technicality and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT restored penalties under Sections 271AAC and 270A after noting CIT(A) dismissed appeal without hearing assessee. Case highlights necessity of providing a fair opportunity before imposing penalties.
The Tribunal held that substantial bank deposits without filing a return provided adequate basis to reopen under section 147. Notice-service objections failed due to section 292BB, and the quantum issue was remanded for verification. The ruling confirms that prima facie material is sufficient for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-payment of advance tax without first seeking clarification from the assessee. Since the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that no advance tax was due, the ITAT restored the matter for fresh consideration. Key takeaway: procedural conditions under Section 249(4)(b) must be applied with fairness and opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the rectification plea after holding that no mistake apparent on record was shown. It ruled that the assessee’s request amounted to seeking a review, which Section 254(2) does not permit.
