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.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
Tribunal remanded the case after finding that documentary evidence submitted during assessment was not examined. The matter is sent back for fresh evaluation with an opportunity of hearing.
ITAT held that the entire disputed turnover cannot be added when purchases are accepted and books are not rejected. Only the embedded profit is taxable, leading to restriction of addition to 5% of turnover.
ITAT ruled that a scrutiny order cannot override a 143(1) intimation if the AO fails to examine pending 154 grievances. The case was remanded because the core adjustments were never adjudicated.
RBI introduces a uniform framework governing interest rates, premature withdrawal penalties, and deposit treatment to ensure fairness and transparency across Local Area Banks.
The Tribunal ruled that the entity did not qualify as an educational institution or as substantially government-financed, leading to denial of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exemption. The dispute over taxing gross receipts was remanded for a fresh decision. Key takeaway: fund management alone cannot justify exemption.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on earlier-year assumptions cannot sustain without year-specific evidence. It found no material to show that current-year sales or debtors were bogus. The takeaway is that assessments must be supported by concrete evidence, not presumptions.
