The ITAT held that reversal of MSMED Act interest cannot be taxed if the provision was never claimed as a deduction. The matter was remanded for verification, with directions to delete the addition if the claim is confirmed.
The ITAT held that penalty cannot be imposed where a capital loss claim was voluntarily withdrawn during assessment. Since no tax benefit was availed, the case did not attract section 271(1)(c).
The dispute concerned the head of taxation for interest received on enhanced land compensation. The Tribunal ruled that Section 28 interest is an accretion to compensation and cannot be assessed as income from other sources.
The ITAT held that cash expenditure cannot be disallowed merely by aggregating payments. Since no payment to any person on a single day crossed the statutory limit, the disallowance was deleted.
The issue was whether interest-free loans to group entities warranted transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal held that since business had not commenced and no income was earned, the adjustment was unsustainable.
The dispute arose from CPC denial of deduction due to late return filing. The Tribunal restored the matter, holding that the Assessing Officer must act based on the CCIT’s condonation decision.
The ITAT held that additions based on survey material cannot be sustained without proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after finding violation of natural justice.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could invoke section 68 in a limited scrutiny case focused on share premium under section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that, without mandatory approval to expand scrutiny, the addition was legally unsustainable.
The issue was whether interim protection lapses if a Section 11 petition is filed beyond 90 days. The Supreme Court held that arbitration commences on receipt of notice under Section 21, preserving interim relief under Section 9(2).
The issue was whether the High Court could interfere with an arbitral award upheld under Section 34. The Supreme Court held that Section 37 jurisdiction is limited and cannot re-examine merits or reinterpret the contract.
