Tribunal held that allegations relating to client code modification did not justify adding the entire purchase value under Section 68 in the facts of the case. Following its earlier decision, it upheld taxation only of the profit embedded in the transactions.
The Kerala High Court held that banks are not required to obtain approval from the Local Level Committee under the National Trust Act before enforcing security interests under the SARFAESI Act. The Court also ruled that challenges to SARFAESI proceedings should ordinarily be pursued before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The Supreme Court held that applications to extend an arbitral tribunals mandate under Section 29A must be filed before the Court defined in Section 2(1)(e), not the High Court that appointed the arbitrator. The ruling resolves conflicting judicial views on jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that an assessment framed after an approved merger in the name of the amalgamating company was without jurisdiction. The assessment order and DRP directions were set aside because the company had ceased to exist.
ITAT Mumbai allowed deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by following Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Biocon Ltd. Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to allow expenditure for relevant assessment year
The ITAT Pune upheld the deletion of an addition made by extrapolating a small unreconciled difference in Form 26AS to the entire year’s receipts. It held that the Assessing Officer’s approach ignored the revised reconciliation and could not form the basis for estimating undisclosed income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that WhatsApp chats indicating suppressed production for one month could not be extrapolated to the entire financial year without corroborative material. The Tribunal restricted the addition to the profit element for a three-month period.
ITAT Kolkata held that the Assessing Officer was required to refer the property valuation to the DVO when the assessee disputed the value under Section 50C(2). The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication after complying with the statutory provision.
Tribunal observed that it is for the businessman to decide how to organise business finances unless there is evidence of tax evasion. It deleted the Section 68 addition after finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds.
ITAT Delhi held that merely reflecting depreciation in an incorrect schedule of the income tax return could not justify an addition under Section 69. Following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
