ITAT ruled that a Section 50C addition cannot stand without a DVO reference where market value is disputed. Matter remanded for fresh valuation and reconsideration.
Registration under section 80G was rejected due to a clause suggesting financial assistance abroad. Ruling: ITAT held application of income occurs in India. Key takeaway: Mere mention of foreign studies cannot block 80G registration.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD could not be applied to a goods carriage business excluded under Section 44AE and restored the matter for fresh examination. The AO must verify conditions under Section 44AE and recompute income accordingly.
ITAT Bangalore allowed deduction of ₹55.4 crore ESOP expenses under section 37, holding it as employee compensation cost. ESOP costs may be deductible even if cross-charged from parent company.
The Tribunal held that conflicting judicial views on Section 10(38) exemption made the issue debatable. Since the assessee disclosed all facts, penalty for concealment could not survive despite later denial of exemption.
The Tribunal quashed additions for bogus purchases, cash seizures, and transfer pricing adjustments, affirming the AOP’s unified management and correct taxation at the consortium level.
ITAT Delhi restored the matter to AO, allowing the assessee to submit evidence on share and agricultural status of land to correctly determine capital gains.
ITAT Delhi allowed ESOP expenses of Rs. 54 lakh, emphasizing adherence to accounting principles and SEBI guidelines. Prior judicial precedents guided deletion of the AO’s disallowance.
The Tribunal emphasized that for notices issued before 01.04.2021, the sanctioning power rested solely with the JCIT, making the PCIT’s approval invalid. Consequently, the ₹82.89 crore disallowance and all further proceedings were set aside.
ITAT allowed exemption under Section 11, holding that Revenue cannot deny benefits due to clerical omission of registration details. Key takeaway: procedural mistakes should not override substantive law.
