The Revenue treated a documented sale of gold, with payment received via RTGS, as a bogus accommodation entry solely based on the buyer’s failure to reply to a section 133(6) notice. The Tribunal held that concrete evidence, including the full bank trail, stock records, and invoice, outweighs a general investigation report or the non-cooperation of a third party, and deleted the unjustified addition under section 69A.
The ITAT deleted the entire Rs.3.94 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, ruling that three companies involved in product development, distribution, and proprietary software (Kellton, Magnasoft, Interglobe) were functionally dissimilar to a captive software service provider.2 The Tribunal held that excluding these companies brought the assessees margin of within the Arms Length Price (ALP) range.
The AO passed a final assessment order without waiting for the DRP’s directions, even though the assessee had filed timely objections against the draft order. The ITAT ruled the final assessment was illegal and void ab initio because the AO violated Section 144C, and it remanded the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication on merits.
The AO mechanically reopened the case and made a 2.86 crore addition based only on an investigation alert, without being able to identify the alleged property. The ITAT upheld the quashing of the entire proceeding, ruling that simple reproduction of external information, without independent application of mind or tangible evidence, invalidates the reassessment notice.
The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 9.70 crore based solely on the uncorroborated statement of a seller recorded during a search. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that a bare Section 132(4) statement without any corroborative evidence (like seized material, book entries, or proof of delivery) is insufficient to prove the cash transaction against a third party.
Description: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of an Exemption-registered society that challenged its reassessment on the legal ground that the AO failed to issue a Section 143(2) notice. The ruling confirms that this notice is mandatory for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 143(3) read with 47, even if the return was filed belatedly.
The AO made massive ex-parte additions under Section 69A after the assessee failed to respond to notices sent to an incorrect email ID of his deceased former CA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication, utilizing the Finance Act 2024 amendment to Section 251, which grants the CIT(A) the power to remit Section 144 best judgment assessments.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a Tribunal’s observation to assess under S. 68 is non-binding, granting the assessee an “open remit” to challenge the cash credit addition.
ITAT Visakhapatnam, in case of Subbarao Jaladi v. ITO, set aside an addition of ₹6,37,16,100/- made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding unexplained bank cash deposits.
The Karnataka High Court rejected a Revenue appeal concerning the taxability of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-USA DTAA due to the tax effect being below the ₹2 Crore threshold set by the CBDT’s latest circular.
