ITAT Mumbai held that Compulsorily Convertible Debentures cannot be equated with call options and that no option premium arose from their issuance. The transfer pricing adjustment was deleted as no taxable income was generated.
ITAT Bangalore held that RBI’s classification of compulsorily convertible debentures as equity for FDI purposes cannot determine their treatment under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled that interest on CCDs before conversion remains allowable.
ITAT Delhi held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made where investments yielding exempt income were financed from the assessee’s own funds rather than borrowed funds.
ITAT Mumbai held that Compulsorily Convertible Debentures retain their character as debt until conversion into equity. It deleted the disallowance of interest under Sections 36 and 37 while remanding the transfer pricing benchmarking issue.
ITAT Chennai held that Compulsorily Convertible Debentures retain the character of debt until conversion into equity. It ruled that interest on CCDs is deductible and that the TPO could not recharacterise them as equity.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessments initiated under Section 153C were time-barred under every possible computation of limitation. The assessment orders were declared void ab initio and quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that cash deposits during the demonetization period could not be treated as unexplained where the assessee’s books of account, stock records, and VAT returns supported the transactions. As no defects were found in the books, the addition under Sections 68/69A was deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that TDS credit cannot be denied merely because it was omitted in the original income tax return. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify Form 26AS and allow the credit if the corresponding income has been offered to tax.
ITAT Bangalore held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated bank after it had ceased to exist is void ab initio. The Tribunal ruled that once the Assessing Officer was informed of the amalgamation, the defect could not be cured under Section 292B.
The Tribunal ruled that filing a return in response to Section 148 does not cure the failure to file the original return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). Consequently, the claim for deduction under Section 80P was rightly rejected.
