Since most salary payments were accepted, the remaining disallowance was held unjustified. Key takeaway: partial acceptance weakens arbitrary additions.
The Tribunal held that audit under section 44AB depends on turnover, not taxability of income. Exempt entities must still comply if limits are exceeded.
The issue involved arbitrary estimation of income at 20% and 5% of turnover. The Tribunal reduced it to 4% due to lack of supporting comparables and considering business realities. The key takeaway is that estimation must be reasonable and justified.
The tribunal examined whether surcharge applies to private discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate. It held that surcharge is not applicable where income is below ₹50 lakh, as per Finance Act thresholds.
ITAT Kolkata held that professional fees for works related to acquisition of new unit or expansion of existing undertaking is governed by provisions of section 35D of the Income Tax Act. Thus, since there is a specific provision u/s. 35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
ITAT Chennai held that the excess payment over the net book value of assets and liabilities acquired on account of amalgamation is in the nature of ‘goodwill’ and is eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal ruled that reallocating management expenses to the profit and loss account under IRDA regulations does not violate law and therefore cannot justify disallowance under the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal ruled that a reassessment order passed prior to notification of the faceless reassessment scheme under Section 151A was without jurisdiction. As the enabling notification came after the assessment date, the entire order was declared void.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
