ITAT clarified that transfer of case between officers in the same city does not require a new notice or hearing, reinforcing that procedural continuity under Section 127(4) ensures jurisdictional validity.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allowed the Revenue’s appeal, fully upholding the addition for salary kickbacks based on overwhelming seized evidence showing a routine, systematic practice. The Tribunal confirmed that this consistent pattern justified extrapolation for the full year.
Rejecting assessee’s plea of invalid reopening, Tribunal ruled that minor clerical mistakes in reasons recorded under Section 147 do not vitiate proceedings if substantive material exists. Information disseminated through Insight Portal was sufficient to establish AO’s belief.
ejecting the Revenue’s approach, the Tribunal held that mere quantum of advertisement or marketing expenses cannot trigger transfer pricing adjustment without demonstrating a direct nexus with a foreign AE.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld PCIT’s revision under Section 263 because AO wrongly allowed a cumulative Rs.28.72 crore foreign exchange loss on ECB repayment in one year. Tribunal ruled that under ICDS-VI and AS-11, forex differences must be recognized annually, making AO’s failure to verify compliance erroneous.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.7.46 lakh disallowance of employees’ PF contribution, ruling that payment made on the next working day is timely when the statutory due date falls on a Sunday. The ruling applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, confirming that the delay was valid and unavoidable.
The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the PCIT’s order under Section 263 was unsustainable because it failed to cite any specific instance where the AO neglected to verify the alleged fictitious loan transaction. For Section 263 to apply, both the error in the assessment and prejudice to the revenue must be proven, which the PCIT did not demonstrate.
The ITAT deleted an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment in property. The tribunal held that authorities couldn’t ignore the sale deed and bank statements proving the co-owner (husband) made the payments in a preceding year, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad invalidated the entire Section 143(1) intimation because the CPC made an adjustment regarding the leave encashment exemption without issuing the mandatory prior notice. The Tribunal held that the failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) is a violation of audi alteram partem and renders the proceedings invalid in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) erred in deleting ₹10.64 crore addition for bogus purchases without obtaining Assessing Officer’s comments on additional evidence. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication in compliance with Rule 46A.
