Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 19 of 19
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had erred by not recording any satisfaction before proceeding with the assessments under Section 153C. This lack of satisfaction was a condition precedent for such assessments.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursements were in the nature of salary paid to seconded employees and not FTS. The assessee established an employer-employee relationship between the seconded employees and the Indian entities.
The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer was not explicitly clear as to whether the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal held that the recording of Section 153C satisfaction is not a mechanical exercise and an improper satisfaction vitiates the assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the addition on which the penalty was imposed had already been deleted in earlier quantum proceedings. Following the principle that a penalty order cannot survive if the underlying addition is deleted, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's adjustment for guarantee commission was based on a wrong presumption and was flawed. It also ruled that the entire commission paid for the sale of property was allowable as transfer expenses. For Section 14A, the disallowance should be computed only on dividend-bearing investments.