The Tribunal allowed depreciation on non-compete fees despite Supreme Court ruling it as revenue expenditure, citing practical difficulty and revenue-neutral impact. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once provisions were disallowed and taxed in an earlier year, their subsequent reversal cannot be taxed again. It directed withdrawal of income offered to prevent double taxation.
Penalty was imposed alleging misreporting due to belated PF/ESI remittance. The Tribunal ruled that a disclosed claim later disallowed does not fall under any clause of Section 270A(9), and deleted the penalty.
The Revenue denied deduction by treating bank interest as Income from Other Sources. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the interest income forms part of business profits eligible for Section 80P.
ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of ₹60 lakh addition after finding that the assessee furnished confirmations, audited financials, bank statements, and Section 133(6) replies. In absence of direct evidence linking loans to accommodation entries, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The AO added expenditure based solely on a mistaken audit report entry. The ITAT deleted the addition after confirming from the concerned party that no transaction occurred.
ITAT held that goodwill arising from acquisition of a business as a going concern represents a bundle of commercial and business rights. Following Supreme Court precedent, depreciation under Section 32 was allowed for AY 2018–19.
The ITAT held that for a builder following the project completion method, income arises on handing over possession and not merely on registration of sale agreement. The addition of entire sale consideration under Section 2(47) was ruled unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned during the year. It deleted both the additional disallowance and the assessee’s own mistaken disallowance.
The ITAT held that leasing hospital property to a group company did not violate Section 13 since trustees’ shareholding was below statutory limits. Denial of exemption under Section 11 and substitution of notional rent were ruled unsustainable.
