The Supreme Court held that sureties cannot be burdened with liability for excess withdrawals allowed by the bank without their consent. However, guarantors remain liable for the original sanctioned loan amount covered by the guarantee.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment under Section 148 cannot be initiated after three years unless the alleged escaped income exceeds ₹50 lakh. Since the disputed amount was only ₹7.10 lakh, the reopening was quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that expenditure on software licences, maintenance, database access and periodic upgrades is allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal ruled that mere use of software does not create a capital asset or enduring ownership right.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot impose the maximum 90% penalty under Section 271AAB without recording extraordinary reasons. In absence of special circumstances, the penalty was restricted to the minimum prescribed rate of 30%.
The Mumbai ITAT held that taxability cannot be conclusively decided while an application for exemption under Section 10(46) remains pending before the CBDT. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the CBDT’s final decision.
The Tribunal ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot pass two reassessment orders for the same assessment year, same transaction, and same addition. The first reassessment proceedings were held legally unsustainable.
The Mumbai ITAT reaffirmed that lease rentals from SEZ and IT Parks along with amenities are taxable as business income. The ruling relied on CBDT Circular No. 16/2017 and multiple judicial precedents supporting taxpayers.
The Mumbai ITAT held that donations made as part of CSR expenditure can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G if statutory conditions are satisfied. The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 37 does not prohibit relief under Chapter VI-A.
The Bangalore ITAT held that revision proceedings under Section 264 are intended to provide relief to taxpayers and cannot worsen their position. The Tribunal struck down an enhanced addition made after remand proceedings during demonetisation cash deposit verification.
The Bangalore ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot estimate additional profit merely due to a fall in net profit ratio when books of account are not rejected. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion over self-made vouchers without concrete evidence cannot justify arbitrary additions.
