The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation was fully explainable from business receipts. ITAT held that explanations were partly unreliable and sustained 50% of the addition under Section 68.
ITAT Chennai held that recharacterization of business from ‘software development service provider’ to ‘contract R&D service provider’ not justifiable as BAPA and TPO’s earlier assessment accepted characterisation of the Assessee to be a Software Development service provider. Hence, upward transfer pricing adjustment deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that the law does not permit selective or partial rejection of books under Section 145(3). In absence of specific defects, additions based on probabilities alone were set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that recovery of duty under section 28(1) of the Customs Act for violation of condition of license not sustained as no allegation of violation raised by DGFT who issued the import license. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
The Tribunal held that assessments based on survey and requisition material are invalid when such material is not furnished to the assessee. All quantum additions were remanded for fresh adjudication after complying with principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether a deductor can be treated as in default for non-deposit of TDS when the payee has already paid tax on the income. ITAT held that no demand under Section 201(1) survives once the payee’s tax payment is established.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained merely on investigation wing inputs. It held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved with documents, additions under Section 68 cannot survive.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions based solely on a DVO report are invalid when books are not rejected and the report is not confronted to the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh verification following natural justice.
The issue was whether income of a predecessor company for years before amalgamation can be reassessed in the hands of the successor. ITAT held that such clubbing is impermissible and the reassessment itself is void.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide mistake in claiming deduction under an incorrect section should not bar relief. The matter was remanded to verify eligibility under section 35(1)(ii).
