The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. It remanded the matter for reconsideration after the earlier year’s decision.
Tribunal rules that Section 14A disallowance must be limited to investments yielding exempt income and orders recomputation under Rule 8D. It also allows ESOP expenses as a valid business deduction under Section 37(1), treating them as an ascertained liability and not a notional or capital expense.
The Tribunal held that consultancy payments for architectural services were not FTS since no technical knowledge was made available. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses, relying on earlier decisions in the same case. It ruled that no change in facts justified a different view.
The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incriminating evidence, such addition is unsustainable, emphasizing the need for nexus.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal clarified that filing of original return is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 54. It directed verification of conditions and allowed relief if eligibility is established.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and Excel sheets are unsustainable without independent evidence. It emphasized that denial of cross-examination violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.
ITAT Mumbai deletes Section 69 additions holding that third-party excel sheets and statements without corroborative evidence lack evidentiary value. Reopening based on unverified data and denial of cross-examination violates natural justice; entire additions quashed.
The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences within 10% fall within permissible tolerance. The ruling protects genuine transactions from arbitrary additions.
