The ITAT held that CSR expenditure disallowed under Section 37(1) does not automatically bar deduction under Section 80G where statutory conditions are fulfilled. It allowed the deduction for donations made to an eligible Section 80G-registered trust.
The ITAT held that foreign exchange gains arising from realization of export proceeds from services rendered to associated enterprises are operating in nature for transfer pricing purposes. It directed verification by the Assessing Officer and corresponding computation of the arm’s length margin.
The ITAT held that Section 69A could not be invoked as the director was not the owner of the unaccounted cash generated through over-invoicing. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition while affirming that the company owned the cash.
The ITAT Delhi held that the assessee could not claim deduction under Section 54 for the first time before the Tribunal when it had neither been claimed in the return nor during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal also upheld the remand of the Section 50C issue to the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits recorded in audited books and linked to disclosed business transactions could not be taxed under Section 69A. The Tribunal deleted the ₹5.60 crore addition after finding the source of deposits was explained.
The ITAT found inconsistencies in the selection and rejection of comparable companies for determining the arm’s length price of international transactions. It directed inclusion and exclusion of specific comparables and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation on goodwill cannot be allowed when the goodwill arises from an unsigned and unregistered Business Transfer Agreement. The Tribunal found that such an agreement lacked legal sanctity and evidentiary value.
ITAT Delhi sustained a Section 69A addition on demonetisation-period cash deposits after finding 539 identical cash sale vouchers lacked credibility. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily establish the genuineness of the sales and deposits.
ITAT Delhi held that a concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where the addition is based on estimation of gross profit. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
The Delhi ITAT upheld the addition of deemed house property income after finding that the assessee failed to support his claims with evidence. The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s factual findings.
