The Tribunal rejected the challenge to disallowance of delayed PF and ESI employee contributions, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. It, however, directed verification of the assessee’s refund claim.
The Tribunal held that shares shown as non-current investments cannot automatically be treated as business expenditure for invoking Section 40A(2)(a). The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee produced documentary evidence supporting the loan, questions regarding the lender’s financial capacity and source of funds required deeper examination. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statements, and tax records, and the Revenue failed to establish any cash trail or nexus with alleged accommodation entries.
Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assistance in enforcement proceedings was a taxable revenue receipt.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the property valuation to the DVO under the unamended Section 55A. Since the reference itself was invalid, the addition based on the DVOs valuation could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 55A effective from 01.07.2012 was prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14. As a result, the DVO reference made for AY 2012-13 was held invalid and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the Assessing Officer could not refer property valuation to the DVO when the assessee relied on a registered valuers higher FMV. The capital gains computation based on the DVOs valuation was therefore set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot determine the arm’s length price of intra-group services at Nil merely based on assumptions regarding benefit or commercial necessity.
The ITAT held that income disclosed during a survey could not be reclassified from business income to Section 69A income through rectification proceedings. A debatable issue cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record.
