The issue involved denial of charitable registration citing delay and lack of evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee deserved a final opportunity to substantiate activities before a fresh decision is taken.
ITAT Delhi emphasized that FAR analysis governs segmentation for transfer pricing purposes. Artificial aggregation without disproving segmental allocation cannot justify adjustments.
The ITAT held that rejecting Rule 11UA valuation without verifying exclusions of non-realisable assets violates natural justice. Valuation additions were remanded for fresh examination, stressing non-mechanical application of deeming provisions.
ITAT Hyderabad held LIBOR + 200 basis points is an appropriate rate of interest on outstanding trade receivables interest of bank short term deposit rate. Accordingly, TPO directed to compute interest on outstanding receivables by applying LIBOR + 200 basis points.
Gujarat High Court held that software consultancy services to parent company located outside India provided on principal to principal basis qualifies as export of service and cannot be considered as intermediary service.
The ITAT found that Rule 8D cannot be applied blindly without examining the nature of investments and income earned. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify whether investments were stock-in-trade and whether they yielded exempt income.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal in limine after the assessee failed to rectify signing and verification defects despite multiple opportunities. Signing of appeal documents was held to be foundational to maintainability.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional officer is void. Jurisdictional compliance is mandatory.
The ITAT upheld deletion of a major share premium addition after finding that all investors complied with notices under Section 133(6) and furnished requisite documents. The ruling reiterates that once the three ingredients of Section 68 are satisfied, the burden shifts to the Revenue.
The ITAT ruled that section 269SS targets cash advances in property deals, not final sale consideration paid at registration. Penalty under section 271D was therefore not leviable.
