ITAT held that statutory transfer of funds to the government is not dividend under Section 2(22). Hence, dividend distribution tax under Section 115-O is not applicable.
ITAT held reassessment invalid due to approval taken from an incorrect authority under Section 151. The ruling confirms that improper sanction makes the entire proceeding void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld dismissal of appeal for non-payment of tax under Section 249(4)(b). However, it remanded the case after finding that the addition based on Form 26AS may be incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that registration was denied due to failure to submit building and safety approvals. It remanded the matter, holding that a fair opportunity must be given before rejecting charitable registration.
The Tribunal upheld that ESOP discount is a valid business expense under Section 37(1), rejecting the view that it is notional or capital. The key takeaway is that ESOP costs are allowable as employee compensation.
The Tribunal held that updated returns filed during ongoing assessment proceedings are not valid under Section 139(8A). The key takeaway is that taxpayers cannot correct returns once scrutiny has begun, though limited relief may still be granted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication considering additional documents.
The Tribunal held that where interest-free funds exceed investments, no disallowance is warranted. It applied the presumption that investments are made from own funds.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The matter concerns two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015–16 and 2019–20. Both appeals arise from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since […]
The ITAT upheld ₹90 lakh addition as the assessee failed to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The ruling emphasizes the burden of proof on taxpayers in cash credit cases.
