Tribunal found the DRP’s order cryptic and lacking proper analysis on similarity of business activities between the assessee and selected comparables. Fresh examination was directed regarding comparability and ALP computation.
CESTAT Mumbai held that recovery proceedings and penalty were unsustainable where inadmissible CENVAT credit was reversed before issuance of notice and remained unutilised due to sufficient credit balance.
The ITAT Surat held that bank transactions reflected cheque discounting business activity and could not be fully treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Only estimated commission income and profit were sustained.
Assessee argued that conclusions drawn from a 2005 survey on liaison offices could not be applied mechanically to later branch office structure. ITAT directed fresh examination of branch office’s actual functions and activities.
ITAT ruled that although LTC exemption involving foreign travel stood disallowed by SC, such judgment could not retrospectively impose TDS default liability for periods covered by judicial interim protection.
Kolkata ITAT observed that suppressed turnover results in savings of rent, salary, and fixed expenses, warranting higher profit estimation, though not at the rate applied by the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT Chennai restored the assessment matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee’s condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was still pending. The Tribunal held that the decision on condonation directly affected eligibility for deduction under Section 80P.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of addition made on estimated production yield after finding no evidence of unaccounted sales. The ruling reiterates that suspicion and assumptions cannot replace material evidence in income tax assessments.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that alleged low production yield and power consumption variations could not justify addition without supporting evidence of unaccounted sales. The Court ruled that assessment cannot be based on suspicion or mathematical assumptions alone.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 80JJAA could not be claimed where the business was acquired through amalgamation. The Tribunal held that transfer of assets, liabilities, and business operations constituted business reorganisation under the Act.
