« ITAT-Constitution of Benches » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Supreme Court Clarifies Income Tax Regime: CBDT Circulars Cannot Bind Courts or Override the Law  ITAT Delhi Quashes Tax Notice on AMU PG Student’s ?18.34 Lakh Stipend, Declares It Tax-Free Under Section 10(16)  Delhi HC Cancels Tax Penalty U/S 271(1)(c) Due to Defective Notice  Inherited Land Converted Into Business Stock: ITAT Surat Allows Section 54F Exemption on ?5 Crore Residential Investment  Can You Claim Income Tax Exemption on the Sale of a Redeveloped Flat? ITAT Explains the Tax Rules  Revised ITR cannot take away capital loss carry-forward if original return was filed on time: ITAT  Tax exemption was denied due to clerical error in ITR filing; ITAT Bangalore gives relief, says tax dept can t take advantage of this error  Cash Found in Locker During Search belongs to Entire Family, Not Solely belongs to Taxpayer: ITAT deletes Addition u/s 69A  Faulty Income Tax Assessment: ITAT Quashes Addition and Penalty against 82 Years Old Senior Citizen  Amrit Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax  ITAT ruling: Cryptocurrencies now recognized as capital assets for taxation «  INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE BENCHES:BANGALOR... Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business... » Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) February, 02nd 2012 TPO can rely on contemporaneous data even if not available at specified date   In a transfer pricing appeal, the Tribunal had to consider two issues: (a) what is the data to be considered by the TPO at the time of determining ALP? & (b) whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to refute the material sought to be utilized by the TPO? HELD by the Tribunal: (i) Under Rule 10D (4) the information and documents should as far as possible be contemporaneous and should exists latest by the specified date specified in s. 92F (4) i.e. the due date for filing the ROI. There is no cut-off date upto which only the information available in public domain can be taken into consideration by the TPO while making the transfer pricing adjustments and arriving at the ALP. The assessees argument that s.92D and Rule 10D is defeated if the TPO takes the data which is available in the public domain after the specified date is not acceptable.   (ii) While the TPO is empowered by s. 131(1) & 133(6) to call for information without informing the assessee about the process, he cannot use such information against the assessee without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the assessee seeks an opportunity to cross-examine third parties, it has to be given the opportunity (Genisys Integrating Systems followed)