ITAT Delhi held that donations forming part of CSR expenditure are eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the statutory conditions are satisfied. The Tribunal ruled that disallowance under Section 37(1) does not bar a separate deduction under Chapter VI-A.
ITAT Mumbai held that purchases supported by invoices, e-way bills, transport records, bank payments, and GST documents cannot be treated as bogus merely because of allegations against the supplier. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition after finding no contrary evidence.
The case examined whether compulsorily convertible debentures should be treated as debt or equity for allowing interest deductions. The Tribunal identified this as the primary issue before determining the arm’s length price of interest.
The ITAT Bangalore held that, from AY 2018-19 onwards, Section 80AC makes timely filing of the return under Section 139(1) a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. A return filed later in response to a Section 148 notice could not revive the claim for deduction under Section 80P.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that repayment of the entire loan with TDS-compliant interest payments undermined the allegation that the loans were accommodation entries. The additions towards interest and commission were deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that loose sheets and estimates alone cannot justify an addition under Section 69B without independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding no proof of investment outside the books of account.
Tribunal held that the estimated disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted and should not form part of book profits, following the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits under Sections 269SS and 269T. Following the Gujarat High Court’s precedent, it deleted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.
The ITAT Nagpur held that investments already disclosed in the balance sheet could not be treated as unexplained investments. It deleted the addition after finding that the Assessing Officer had added disclosed investments.
The ITAT set aside the rejection of registration under Section 12AB after noting that only one opportunity of hearing had been provided. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to allow the assessee to submit supporting documents.
