ITAT Ahmedabad held that a bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments when it acted in compliance with binding interim directions of the Madras High Court. The Tribunal deleted demands raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Department argued that Section 292BC validated the approval despite alleged deficiencies, but the Tribunal rejected this contention. It held that the amendment could not apply to approvals granted before 1 April 2021. The ruling clarified that subsequent legislative changes could not cure defects in earlier approvals.
The Chennai ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A), holding that the appellate authority failed to examine a prior Tribunal decision in the assessee’s own case involving similar issues.
The Chandigarh ITAT ruled that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii), holding that post-2009 amendments govern the issue despite claims for exemption under Section 10(37).
The Delhi ITAT held that Fees for Technical Services cannot be taxed under Article 22 of the India-Thailand DTAA merely because the treaty lacks a specific FTS clause. In the absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, such business income was held not taxable.
The ITAT Delhi held that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges are payments for maintenance services and not consideration for the use of premises. Accordingly, TDS on such payments is deductible under Section 194C and not Section 194-I.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a protective addition cannot be deleted merely because a substantive addition has been confirmed at the first appellate stage if the substantive addition is still under challenge. The ruling emphasizes that protective additions may continue until final adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a 12.5% disallowance could not be sustained when the Assessing Officer neither rejected the books of account nor disputed the sales. The key takeaway is that additions must be supported by proper findings and evidence.
Despite a significant gap between the agreement and registration dates, ITAT granted relief under the first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(vii). The key takeaway is that timely banking-channel payments pursuant to the agreement are crucial for claiming the benefit.
The ITAT Bangalore upheld deduction of ESOP expenditure under Section 37, holding that the liability arising from employee stock options is an ascertained business expense. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court ruling in Biocon Ltd. despite pending appeals before the Supreme Court.
