Delhi ITAT held that donations qualifying under Section 80G do not lose eligibility merely because they form part of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure.
The Tribunal ruled that addition of the entire amount of bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure was unwarranted in the facts of the case. It reaffirmed that only the estimated profit arising from such purchases should be brought to tax.
Delhi ITAT ruled that delayed deposit of employees’ PF/ESI contributions attracts disallowance under Section 36(1)(va). The decision reinforces that such adjustments are permissible during summary processing of returns.
The ITAT held that an assessee can contest a Section 143(1) adjustment in an appeal against the assessment order if the adjustment is retained therein. The case emphasizes that multiple statutory remedies may coexist.
The Chennai ITAT held that the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 on matters already under consideration before the appellate authority. The ruling emphasises the statutory bar against parallel revision proceedings on the same issue.
The Chennai ITAT held that excess stock found during a survey could not be taxed as unexplained investment when it had been accounted for in the books and offered as business income. The ruling emphasises that a satisfactory explanation regarding the source of stock defeats the application of Section 69B.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of a ₹10 lakh deduction after the recipient political party informed the tax authorities that it had not received the contribution. The ruling emphasises that taxpayers must establish the genuineness of donations claimed under Section 80GGC.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80GGC after finding that the political donation formed part of an alleged accommodation entry arrangement. The ruling emphasised that deductions may be denied where investigative findings indicate a lack of genuineness and remain unrebutted by the taxpayer.
The dispute concerned whether dividend received on capital reduction by a foreign subsidiary could trigger restrictions under Section 115BBDA. ITAT held that the statutory conditions of Section 115BBDA were not satisfied, and therefore the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The ITAT Pune held that a genuine claim for exemption under Section 10(20) cannot be rejected merely because the assessee mistakenly claimed a deduction under a different provision in its return.
