The ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely describing a transaction as a loan by one party and a purchase advance by the other could not justify revision under Section 263. As the source of funds was explained and the amount was refunded, no addition under Section 69A was warranted.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that payments made for Google AdWords constitute advertising contracts under Section 194C and not fees for technical services under Section 194J. The Tribunal ruled that the automated platform did not involve the rendering of technical services to the advertiser.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an ₹80 lakh addition after holding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender companies. The Tribunal ruled that additions cannot rest solely on suspicion of circular transactions without corroborative evidence.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the assessment was invalid because the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous.
Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making disallowances beyond the selected issues without following the prescribed CBDT procedure. Such additions were held to be unsustainable.
The Rajasthan High Court held that policy decisions relating to the Foreign Trade Policy and the Hand Book of Procedure cannot be altered through judicial directions under Article 226. It dismissed the PIL seeking directions to modify the framework governing pre-import and Actual User Conditions.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and conscious satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269ST in the assessment order. The ruling reiterates that such satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, suppression, or wilful intent. The Court set aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalty for lack of statutory compliance.
The Tribunal ruled that loss of an old Section 12A registration certificate is only a procedural deficiency and cannot by itself justify rejection of a Section 12AB application. The matter was remanded for verification of departmental records.
The ITAT observed that registration undertaken solely to satisfy a banks mortgage requirement cannot automatically attract tax under Section 56(2)(x). It restored the matter for fresh examination of the true nature of the transaction.
