Delhi High Court held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is to be restricted to the exempted income. Amendment to section 14A in terms of Finance Act, 2022 is prospective in nature. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Cash deposits arising from routine business collections cannot be wholly treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that estimations must reflect the nature of the taxpayer’s business.
ITAT Pune held that non-examination of issue of depreciation claimed on goodwill justifies invocation of revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order sustained and appeal of assessee dismissed.
NCLT Mumbai held that the Corporate Debtor [Damara Gold Private Limited] has committed a default in repaying the financial debt to the Financial Creditor [M/s. Punjab National Bank]. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC for initiation of CIRP admitted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is purely estimated. The ruling reinforces that estimation alone does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT held that once tax is deducted from an employee’s income, credit cannot be denied merely because the employer failed to deposit it. Section 205 bars recovery of such tax from the employee.
The Tribunal upheld depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The ruling confirms that excess consideration recognized as goodwill qualifies for depreciation under section 32.
ITAT held that a loan cannot be treated as unexplained merely on the basis of a third-party search statement. When confirmations, bank statements, and repayment evidence are on record, independent verification by the AO is mandatory.
Revenue’s claim that manufacturing activity was artificially shifted to extend tax benefits was rejected. The Tribunal held that factual expansion and eligible profits were duly established.
With the reassessment notice quashed, the consequential assessment order and demand were automatically annulled. The ruling highlights that taxpayers cannot be burdened where initiation itself is unlawful.
