Delhi High Court rules in PCIT v. Amadeus India that no Transfer Pricing adjustment is warranted for AMP expenses, citing no ‘international transaction.’ The Court reiterates the Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective from AY 2022-23, not retrospective, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2018-19.
This ruling underscores the requirement for independent verification of uncorroborated search material, deleting additions made for unexplained cash under Section 69A and Capital Gains based on an employee’s diary. ITAT’s decision confirms that mere suspicion or rough personal notings, full of inconsistencies, cannot be the foundation for substantial tax demands.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the denial of the right to cross-examine a third party whose statement forms the foundation of a tax addition constitutes a serious violation of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside the 68 additions of 1.56 crore (across two years) and remanded the case to the AO for de novo assessment with mandatory opportunity for cross-examination.
Madras High Court granted an interim stay on all recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against the reassessment order. The Court explicitly linked its decision and the case’s future to the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in Hexaware Technologies, establishing a clear procedural precedent for similar reassessment writ petitions.
The Delhi High Court set aside a reassessment notice and the corresponding order under Section 148A(3) because its basis was the incorrect assessment year for a major transaction. The Court, in the interest of fairness, remanded the matter, directing the AO to provide a fresh hearing after the taxpayer files documents proving the transaction occurred in AY 2018-19, not the reopened AY 2019-20.
This decision reinforces the legal requirement that supervisory approval under Section 153D is a substantive safeguard, not an empty ritual. The High Court affirmed that granting blanket sanction to 246 assessments through a generic endorsement is equivalent to a mechanical approval that fails to satisfy legislative intent.
The Ahmedabad ITAT has struck down reassessment orders against Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, holding that the AO’s reliance solely on an ACB disproportionate assets report without independent application of mind or specifying escaped income is “borrowed satisfaction,” invalidating the Section 147 jurisdiction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Dehradun, quashed the retrospective cancellation of the charitable trust registration (Sec 12A/12AB) of Sushila Devi Centre. The Tribunal held that the PCIT (Central), Kanpur, acted without jurisdiction, asserting that only the CBDT-notified CIT (Exemption) possessed the authority to cancel such registrations under section 120.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, upheld the addition of ₹19.06 Cr (AY 2011-12) and ₹17.53 Cr (AY 2012-13) to Raheja Developers Limited’s income. The ITAT confirmed the finding that the sale of 22 shops to M/s Sagar Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) was a bogus transaction involving a shell company to route the developer’s own unaccounted funds back into its books as sale consideration.
The ITAT granted complete relief, holding that the date of allotment of the new industrial plot, not the date of registration, is the relevant date of purchase for the Section 54G capital gains exemption. Furthermore, the court confirmed that the transfer of industrial property from Delhi (Urban) to Ghaziabad (Non-Urban) qualified for the full shifting exemption.
