The ITAT Pune upheld the deduction under Section 10AA after finding that the Assessing Officer had not established that the SEZ units were formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. It followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
The ITAT Mumbai held that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) could not apply in the absence of any finding by the competent authority that the assessee had committed an offence or violated the Insurance Act. The disallowance was therefore deleted.
The Mumbai ITAT upheld deletion of notional interest on interest-free advances to a subsidiary, finding the issue consistently decided in earlier years. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of changed facts, the CIT(A) rightly followed binding precedents.
The NCLT Bengaluru permitted amendment of the date of default in a Section 9 petition after holding that the change merely aligned the pleadings with the existing factual foundation. It ruled that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action.
The ITAT Pune held that deletion of the addition was premature as the source of cash payments reflected in seized diaries had not been properly examined. It remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.
NCLT Chennai permitted revision of the company’s FY 2019-20 financial statements after finding that the Inter Corporate Deposit, interest income, and cash flow entries were inadvertently misclassified. The Tribunal held that the corrections were necessary to present a true and fair view under Section 129 and satisfied the requirements of Section 131 of the Companies Act.
The ITAT Hyderabad upheld deletion of a ₹68.75 crore Section 68 addition after finding that the partner had established the source of capital contribution through sale proceeds of land. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence sufficiently explained the capital introduced into the firm.
The Hyderabad ITAT restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify whether project support and business development costs qualify as Head Office expenditure under Section 44C. It held that the classification requires factual verification before deciding the allowable deduction.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash claimed as marriage gifts could not be accepted where the assessee failed to explain why it remained with him long after the marriage. The Tribunal sustained the addition relating to the Shagun amount.
The NCLT Chennai admitted a Section 9 insolvency petition after holding that the corporate debtor failed to establish a genuine pre-existing dispute. It found that the objections regarding quality and adjustments were unsupported by contemporaneous evidence.
