ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹1.06 crore addition under Section 41(1). The tribunal held that the unsecured loans were used for capital expenditure, not trading purposes, making the addition inapplicable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits of Rs. 17.29 lakh were merely redeposits of earlier withdrawals. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted as the evidence showed no unexplained income.
ITAT Hyderabad held that an ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) violated section 250(6) as not all grounds were adjudicated. The case was restored for a fresh, reasoned hearing.
ITAT Hyderabad upheld the dismissal of a trust’s appeal as barred by limitation due to a delay of nearly five years. The tribunal emphasized that no reasonable cause was shown to condone the delay under section 249(3).
Kerala High Court held that appellate authority to adopt liberal view and accept document since appropriate opportunity not granted by adjudicating authority to produce documents. Accordingly, writ disposed of and matter remanded back.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transaction of payment of bareboat charter hire fees is directed to be deleted since benchmarking approach of assessee is already accepted by DRP in earlier years.
Delhi High Court held that order is liable to be set aside and matter remanded to ITAT since ITAT failed to provide appropriate reasoning with regard to functionality of comparable while undertaking transfer pricing adjustment.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on account of section 14A of the Income Tax Act while computing books profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, addition u/s. 14A deleted and appeal of assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted since the said amount is already disclosed before Income Tax Settlement Commission. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that denial to allow the business loss stating the requirement of books of accounts to be audited is not justifiable since turnover during relevant period didn’t exceed the prescribed limit for getting books of accounts audited.
