The Tribunal held that Section 69 additions based solely on pen-drive data and an employee’s statement from a third-party search could not be sustained. No corroboration or confrontation to the assessee was provided. The ruling confirms that unsupported electronic data cannot create taxable on-money additions.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD could not be applied to a goods carriage business excluded under Section 44AE and restored the matter for fresh examination. The AO must verify conditions under Section 44AE and recompute income accordingly.
ITAT Bangalore allowed deduction of ₹55.4 crore ESOP expenses under section 37, holding it as employee compensation cost. ESOP costs may be deductible even if cross-charged from parent company.
The Tribunal held that conflicting judicial views on Section 10(38) exemption made the issue debatable. Since the assessee disclosed all facts, penalty for concealment could not survive despite later denial of exemption.
The Tribunal quashed additions for bogus purchases, cash seizures, and transfer pricing adjustments, affirming the AOP’s unified management and correct taxation at the consortium level.
ITAT Delhi restored the matter to AO, allowing the assessee to submit evidence on share and agricultural status of land to correctly determine capital gains.
ITAT Delhi allowed ESOP expenses of Rs. 54 lakh, emphasizing adherence to accounting principles and SEBI guidelines. Prior judicial precedents guided deletion of the AO’s disallowance.
The Tribunal admitted a Section 7 insolvency petition after finding default exceeding ₹1 crore and noting the debtor’s non-appearance. Key takeaway: uncontroverted financial debt and default mandate CIRP admission.
The Calcutta High Court held that recovering more than 20% of a disputed tax demand from other refunds while an appeal is pending is impermissible. The ruling directs the Income Tax authorities to refund the excess amount.
The Court ruled that ITC reversal is unsustainable when the supplier was registered and tax was duly paid. The petitioner’s ITC claim was upheld as legitimate.
