The ITAT Kolkata found that the assessees share capital remained unchanged throughout the year and no fresh capital was received. As a result, the addition under Section 68 for alleged unexplained share capital was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that a bad debt deduction cannot be denied once the debt is validly written off in the books of account. The Tribunal ruled that proof of actual irrecoverability was not required in view of CBDT circulars and judicial precedent.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the Assessing Officer could not examine issues beyond the limited scrutiny mandate without following CBDT-prescribed procedures for conversion into complete scrutiny. As a result, the interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of advertisement and publicity expenses after finding that sponsorship of football teams, tournaments, and green movement initiatives was undertaken for business promotion. It held that such expenditure qualified as allowable business expenses.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing appeals was justified where the assessee had shifted to a new PAN and filed returns under it. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that deposits received and remitted by the assessee as a Bank of India business correspondent could not be treated as unexplained money. The addition of ₹2.31 crore under Section 69A was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Delhi deleted a long-term capital gains addition based on entries in a third-party seized diary. The Tribunal relied on earlier final orders in related cases where the same diary was found to lack evidentiary value.
ITAT Delhi accepted the assessee’s contention that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The ruling restricted the addition to the exempt income of ₹2.63 lakh despite a higher Rule 8D computation.
The Madras High Court held that reimbursements made to a foreign subsidiary for online advertising expenses were not included within the statutory scope of equalisation levy. The refund rejection order was set aside for reconsideration.
The service tax demand arose from differences between income tax records and ST-3 returns. The Tribunal ruled that Form 26AS, which formed the basis of the investigation, required proper evaluation before confirming liability.
