The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases could be taxed and affirmed a 2% estimation based on binding precedents in the assessee’s own earlier assessment years. The Revenue’s challenge to the reduced rate was rejected.
The ITAT held that where transactions with the Indian associated enterprise are at arm’s length, additional profit attribution to the alleged permanent establishment is unwarranted. The Tribunal therefore deleted the income attributed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal ruled that application software purchased independently from computer hardware is still covered under the specific depreciation entry for computer software. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow depreciation at 60% instead of 25%.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of information arising from a search in the case of a third party fell within the exceptions to Section 148A. It ruled that issuance of a notice under Section 148A was without authority of law and could not confer jurisdiction. The reassessment was accordingly quashed.
The ITAT held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation could not be disallowed in subsequent years after it had been accepted in the initial assessment. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on CSR deduction under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regular registration under Section 80G deserved to be condoned due to sufficient cause. The matter was remanded for consideration on merits instead of being rejected solely on limitation.
ITAT Mumbai allowed deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by following Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Biocon Ltd. Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to allow expenditure for relevant assessment year
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the surviving limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court were invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and assessment orders were quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during complete scrutiny and adopted a permissible view. Since the twin conditions under Section 263 were not satisfied, the revision order was quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that Section 69C cannot be invoked where expenditure is duly recorded in the books and its source is fully explained. It deleted the addition relating to royalty, commission, and technical service payments.
