The Tribunal held that a 12.5% disallowance could not be sustained when the Assessing Officer neither rejected the books of account nor disputed the sales. The key takeaway is that additions must be supported by proper findings and evidence.
Despite a significant gap between the agreement and registration dates, ITAT granted relief under the first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(vii). The key takeaway is that timely banking-channel payments pursuant to the agreement are crucial for claiming the benefit.
The ITAT Bangalore upheld deduction of ESOP expenditure under Section 37, holding that the liability arising from employee stock options is an ascertained business expense. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court ruling in Biocon Ltd. despite pending appeals before the Supreme Court.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during the demonetization period could not be treated as unexplained credits when they originated from duly recorded business sales accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition under Section 68.
ITAT Hyderabad held that dismissal of an appeal under section 249(4)(b) was unjustified where the assessee claimed that the receipts were exempt retirement benefits and no advance tax liability arose. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify the nature and taxability of the amounts reflected in Form 16.
The Tribunal ruled that premium rooms, higher tariffs, and specialized medical facilities cannot by themselves establish a profit motive. Charitable status must be tested on statutory criteria rather than perceptions of affordability or luxury.
The ITAT Delhi held that free tickets, hospitality, conveyance, goods, and lodging expenses attracted Fringe Benefit Tax under the applicable provisions. However, it ruled that rejection of the assessee’s claims did not automatically justify penalty.
Delhi ITAT held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid where the satisfaction note for the non-searched person was recorded after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that Section 153C(3) barred such proceedings, rendering the assessments void.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made where the assessee’s interest-free funds substantially exceeded its investments. It reaffirmed that the Revenue must establish a direct nexus between borrowings and exempt-income investments.
The Tribunal found that none of the purchasers examined by the Department had admitted making cash payments to the assessee. In the absence of statements, receipts, diaries, or other incriminating material, the allegation of on-money remained unsubstantiated. The addition based on presumptions was therefore set aside.
