Delhi ITAT Restricts Corporate Guarantee Fee to 0.30% After Finding Actual Interest Saving Was Only 0.60%; Holds TP Adjustment Must Reflect Real Benefit From Corporate Guarantee.
ITAT Mumbai upheld deletion of consultancy expenditure disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to produce cogent evidence showing that services were not rendered. The Tribunal held that suspicion and third-party allegations alone could not justify the addition.
ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the Revenue was inadmissible in law. The Tribunal observed that mandatory procedures relating to digital evidence handling and chain of custody were not properly followed.
ITAT Chandigarh deleted an addition made under Section 69 after finding that the Assessing Officer relied only on an Excel sheet entry without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that suspicion alone cannot justify an addition.
The case involved additions based on seized diaries, alleged cash sales, and estimated profits. The ITAT partly accepted the assessee’s arguments and directed adoption of a revised industry GP rate for computing taxable income.
Eempt income, which were disallowed under Section 14A could not be automatically added back to compute the book profit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB without pinpointing real, actual expenditures recorded in the books of accounts by tax authorities that possess a direct nexus with the tax-free earnings.
ITAT Agra held that reopening beyond three years under Section 149 was invalid because the final escapement of income determined by the Assessing Officer was only Rs.27 lakh. The statutory threshold of Rs.50 lakh was therefore not satisfied.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that outstanding sundry creditors could not be treated as unexplained cash credits when the assessee demonstrated subsequent repayment through banking transactions. The Tribunal found the Revenue’s partial acceptance of the same transactions inconsistent.
ITAT Bangalore held that sale of 25 plots did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade because the properties were held for six years as investments. The Tribunal ruled that mere multiplicity of plots sold cannot by itself convert capital gains into business income.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership alone cannot restrict Section 54 deduction where the entire source of investment for the new residential property originated from the assessee.
