ejecting the Revenue’s approach, the Tribunal held that mere quantum of advertisement or marketing expenses cannot trigger transfer pricing adjustment without demonstrating a direct nexus with a foreign AE.
ITAT Jaipur held that denial of Section 11 exemption solely due to non-furnishing of the registration certificate under Section 12A is invalid where 80G approval exists, since 80G presupposes valid 12AA registration.
Tribunal ruled that merely selling agricultural land does not make it a business transaction. It directed AO to reassess whether land was held for investment or trade based on intention, frequency and surrounding facts.
ITAT Dehradun accepted ₹15 lakh from poplar tree sales as explained income and ruled that Section 115BBE applies prospectively from 1 April 2017. Tribunal granted partial relief, deleting major additions made on demonetisation cash deposits.
NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in rejecting a CoC-approved resolution plan, emphasizing that commercial wisdom should prevail absent statutory violations under Section 30(2) of the IBC.
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the transfer of an income tax assessment file from Udaipur to New Delhi in the Murliwala Agrotech case, ruling that the mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act cannot be circumvented without recorded reasons.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that debt and default under Section 7 of the IBC were established despite partial loan disbursement.
Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order confirming addition of ₹15.01 lakh as unexplained cash deposits, directing the authority to give the assessee a fair opportunity to rebut the remand report and produce supporting evidence.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.11 Cr capital gains addition for the sale of alleged agricultural land back to the AO for fresh verification. The matter was sent back due to the assessee’s non-compliance and non-submission of evidence in prior proceedings.
ITAT Pune set aside an addition of Rs.38.26 lakh, accepting new evidence (affidavits from the assessee and a clerk) that the agricultural income shown in the return was a clerical error. The Tribunal ruled that no person should be taxed on income that never existed and remanded the case to the AO for fresh verification and de novo assessment.
