The ITAT Mumbai held that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) could not apply in the absence of any finding by the competent authority that the assessee had committed an offence or violated the Insurance Act. The disallowance was therefore deleted.
The Mumbai ITAT upheld deletion of notional interest on interest-free advances to a subsidiary, finding the issue consistently decided in earlier years. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of changed facts, the CIT(A) rightly followed binding precedents.
The ITAT Mumbai held that sales tax and similar State Government incentives were capital receipts because the schemes were intended to promote industrialisation, backward area development and employment, applying the Supreme Court’s purpose test.
The ITAT Mumbai held that revision under Section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had examined and consciously allowed deduction under Section 80G for eligible CSR expenditure.
The ITAT Mumbai held that ESOP discount is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1), observing that the pendency of an SLP against a High Court judgment does not justify disallowance.
The Mumbai ITAT held that ownership premises received under a redevelopment scheme are acquired in exchange for valuable tenancy rights and cannot be treated as having a nil cost. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value of the surrendered tenancy rights for recomputing capital gains.
The dispute concerned deduction of CSR expenditure incurred before Explanation 2 to section 37(1) became applicable. The ITAT held that the contribution, made under Ministry of Shipping guidelines, was allowable for AY 2012-13. The decision emphasised that the statutory bar introduced from AY 2015-16 could not be applied retrospectively.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must implement the terms of the later APA covering royalty payments to the AE. The ruling required fresh effect to be given based on the modified return.
Expenditure of ₹4.49 crore incurred on maintenance dredging for removal of natural siltation and restoration of the existing operational depth of the jetty constituted revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1). Accordingly, the disallowance made by AO and sustained by CIT(A) was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that purchases supported by invoices, e-way bills, transport records, bank payments, and GST documents cannot be treated as bogus merely because of allegations against the supplier. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition after finding no contrary evidence.
