The case clarifies that commission paid to foreign agents for export facilitation abroad cannot be disallowed for non-deduction of tax. Absence of income accrual in India was decisive.
The issue was whether a trust with mixed charitable and religious objects could be denied 80G approval. The Tribunal held that composite trusts are eligible if religious expenditure stays within statutory limits, and directed grant of approval.
The ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 where the Assessing Officer accepted large demonetisation cash deposits without proper verification. Failure to examine utilisation of withdrawals or call for a cash book rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Revenue sought to tax total on-money collected under section 69A. The ITAT ruled that on-money forms part of business receipts and must be assessed on a profit basis. The key takeaway is that taxation cannot ignore unaccounted expenses linked to such receipts.
No on-money addition was made in the cases of other co-owners of the same property. The ITAT held that the Revenue cannot adopt a contradictory stand on identical facts.
The issue was whether a buyer could be taxed for alleged cash payment based only on the seller’s admission. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, no on-money addition can be sustained in the buyer’s hands.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that if a Section 263 revision order is quashed, any consequential assessment and appeals based on it are rendered inoperative. Key takeaway: assessments cannot stand on invalid foundations.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that upward transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee fee given to Associate Enterprise is not sustainable based on settled orders of Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in earlier years. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
