The ITAT held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation could not be disallowed in subsequent years after it had been accepted in the initial assessment. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on CSR deduction under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regular registration under Section 80G deserved to be condoned due to sufficient cause. The matter was remanded for consideration on merits instead of being rejected solely on limitation.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned loose paper containing only jottings could not justify an addition without corroborative evidence. The addition of alleged interest income was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the disallowance of employees’ PF/ESI contributions deposited beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts. Following binding Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that payment before filing the income tax return does not cure the delay, while remanding the Form 26AS mismatch issue for fresh verification.
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.
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.
