ITAT Mumbai held that as per rule 3(8)(iii) fair market value of any equity shares on the date of exercising option by the employee shall be determined by a merchant banker. Accordingly, quantum of perquisite and TDS liability will be worked on the said basis.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition solely on the basis of PEN drive found during the search proceedings, without checking the veracity/ reliability of the data recorded in the PEN drive, is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D cannot be more than the quantum of exempt income.
ITAT Mumbai held that as expenses are not specifically disputed; books of accounts admitted to be correct and payments made through banking channel, disallowing the expenses at whims and fancies is unsustainable in law. Department is required to follow the rule of consistency.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO has jurisdiction to examine the quantum of expenditure, however, TPO has no jurisdiction question the assessees need or prudence for making payment for the expenditure.
ITAT Bangalore held that PCIT justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act as AO merely accepted the additional income offered by the assessee without verifying the bogus purchases and amount recorded in books.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 justified as investment made by the companies in the assessee company lacks trust and details of transactions submitted by the assessee didn’t inspire confidence as the credibility of the companies are questionable as per the financials of the same.
ITAT Delhi held that ESOP expenditure to acquire shares of parent company is allowable as and when the expenditure is paid by the assessee to the parent company. Actual payment of the expenditure and time of expenditure needs to be verified
ITAT Mumbai held that development rights in the plot of land were transferred to the builder in the financial year 2000–01. Provisions of section 50C were effective only from 1st April 2003 and hence the same are not applicable in the present case.
ITAT Bangalore held that AO completed the assessment completed without verification of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(1) and hence Pr. CIT validly initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
