Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making a 10% purchase disallowance. The addition was deleted as it was based only on assumptions derived from portal data.
Mumbai ITAT held that business receipts from an Indian associated enterprise were not taxable in India because the assessee had no Permanent Establishment under the India-UAE DTAA. The Tribunal ruled that mere provision of personnel did not automatically create a PE.
Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of account. It rejected the Revenue’s view that NPAs classified earlier must necessarily be written off in those earlier years.
ITAT Mumbai held that Form 3CL issued by DSIR could not be treated as additional evidence during rectification proceedings since it had already been sent to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the issue for fresh quantification of deduction under Section 35(2AB).
ITAT Mumbai held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) cannot impose independent or contingent conditions while granting registration under Section 12AB. The Tribunal ruled that tax benefits could not be kept subject to the outcome of a proposed Supreme Court appeal.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated after scrutiny assessment were invalid because they relied on the same material already examined earlier. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a previously accepted claim.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS and the lender had offered interest income to tax. These facts supported the genuineness of the transaction and rendered the Section 68 addition unsustainable.
Mumbai ITAT held that no addition under Section 43CA could survive where difference between agreement value and DVO valuation remained within 10% tolerance band. Tribunal ruled that safe harbour benefit applies once DVO valuation substitutes stamp duty value.
Tribunal ruled that objections relating to defective title, encroachments, and legal disputes require proper valuation examination through a DVO reference. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments made for global brand, communications, and technology support services within the Deloitte network did not amount to royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that no transfer of copyright or intellectual property rights had taken place.
