The issue was whether ALP can be determined without comparable transactions. ITAT held that Rule 10AB mandates comparables, making the TPO’s approach invalid and restricting the adjustment.
ITAT set aside the addition made under Section 68 due to incomplete verification of a large gift transaction. It remanded the case for fresh examination with proper evidence and opportunity.
The case addressed whether reassessment can proceed before disposing of objections. The Tribunal ruled that such action breaches mandatory legal procedure, leading to quashing of the assessment.
The Revenue challenged allowance of bad debts due to lack of NCLT evidence. The Tribunal held that post-amendment law requires only write-off in books, not proof of irrecoverability. The ruling reinforces that accounting write-off alone is sufficient for deduction.
ITAT held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied via rectification under Section 154 for alleged delay in filing Form 10B. The issue involved disputed facts and prior acceptance, making Section 154 invocation invalid.
ITAT held that interest under Section 220(2) must be recomputed based on reduced assessed income after rectification under Section 154. However, it clarified that interest will still run from the original demand date.
Tribunal set aside addition as the assessee established genuineness of loans through documentary evidence. However, it remanded the case to verify whether loans were repaid.
The High Court held that DRT orders are appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked without exhausting the statutory remedy.
ITAT Kolkata held that professional fees for works related to acquisition of new unit or expansion of existing undertaking is governed by provisions of section 35D of the Income Tax Act. Thus, since there is a specific provision u/s. 35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act.
Dazzler Confectionery Company Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted Due to Defective Notice – No Specific Charge Mentioned AO levied penalty of ₹44.79 lakh u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowances relating to pre-operative expenses & 35D deduction. Penalty notice u/s 274 was issued using “concealment OR furnishing inaccurate particulars” without specifying the exact charge. Assessee […]
