The ITAT Bangalore upheld deduction of ESOP expenditure under Section 37, holding that the liability arising from employee stock options is an ascertained business expense. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court ruling in Biocon Ltd. despite pending appeals before the Supreme Court.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during the demonetization period could not be treated as unexplained credits when they originated from duly recorded business sales accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition under Section 68.
ITAT Hyderabad held that dismissal of an appeal under section 249(4)(b) was unjustified where the assessee claimed that the receipts were exempt retirement benefits and no advance tax liability arose. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify the nature and taxability of the amounts reflected in Form 16.
The ITAT Delhi held that free tickets, hospitality, conveyance, goods, and lodging expenses attracted Fringe Benefit Tax under the applicable provisions. However, it ruled that rejection of the assessee’s claims did not automatically justify penalty.
Delhi ITAT held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid where the satisfaction note for the non-searched person was recorded after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C(3) barred such proceedings, rendering the assessments void.
The Authority held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) does not permit reclaim of ITC already reversed under earlier rulings. It clarified that the amendment only overrides Section 16(4) and does not dilute other eligibility conditions under Section 16.
The Tribunal held that delayed filing of Form 10-IC should not defeat the assessee’s substantive right to opt for the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA. Since the intention to avail the lower tax rate was evident from the records, the benefit was allowed.
The Bombay High Court held that limitation under Section 35 of the Goa VAT Act must be computed after excluding the COVID period where the assessment order itself was served during that period. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of delay condonation.
The Delhi High Court held that its earlier order directing the applicant to join investigation within ten days required no further clarification. The Court ruled that the applicant had failed to act within the stipulated timeline despite adequate directions.
The ruling emphasized that CAM charges remain separate transactions irrespective of whether payments are made to the same landlord or a different entity. TDS under Section 194C was held to be correctly deducted.
