The Tribunal held that enhancing profit to 10% without comparables was arbitrary. Past accepted margins around 6% had to guide estimation. Income was directed to be computed at 6%.
The Tribunal clarified that precedents cannot replace factual analysis under TNMM. High-turnover mismatches justified exclusion, but other comparables required verification. The ruling underscores disciplined TP benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that once delay in filing the return is condoned under Section 119(2)(b), denial of Section 80P solely for late filing is unsustainable. The deduction was directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that a landowner under a JDA cannot be forced to adopt the percentage completion method merely because the developer follows it. Consistent use of the project completion method was upheld as legally valid.
Both 12AB and 80G applications were rejected without adequate reasoning or opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized mandatory compliance with due process. The cases were sent back for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
The Court held that confiscation orders passed under GST laws are appealable under Section 107 and should not be challenged directly in writ jurisdiction. As an effective appellate remedy existed, the petition was not maintainable. The ruling reinforces the primacy of statutory remedies in GST disputes.
The issue was whether late-fee under Section 234E could be levied while processing TDS returns before 01-06-2015. The Tribunal held that without Section 200A(1)(c), such levy was without authority of law.
Chennai ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263, confirming that when the AO adopts a plausible view and conducts proper scrutiny, revision is unwarranted.
The Karnataka High Court invalidated a faceless assessment because the show-cause notice gave the assessee less than seven days to respond, violating mandatory SOP and principles of natural justice.
