The Tribunal held that revenue-sharing license fees under the 1999 policy are capital expenditure, mandatorily amortizable under section 35ABB, following the Supreme Court verdict.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits arising from recorded pharmacy sales during demonetisation cannot be added under section 68 when turnover is accepted and duly taxed.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held genuine where supported by EMI recoveries from thousands of borrowers, with no enquiry or evidence to treat them as unexplained.
Tribunal confirmed that transfer of passive infrastructure assets is genuine and qualifies as a gift under section 47(iii), rejecting revenue’s claim of tax avoidance.
Transfer pricing adjustment of ₹21.88 lakh partly reduced to 0.5% corporate guarantee fee. Tribunal confirms international transaction status but applies consistent methodology with prior years.
The Tribunal examined opening cash balance of ₹6.16 lakh brought forward from prior year. CIT(A) had disallowed it, but AO verification confirmed its genuineness. ITAT set aside the addition under Section 69A and allowed the appeal.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that denial of refund claim on the basis of limitation cannot be justified, since amount during investigation was paid under bona fide belief and particularly, when the Department itself acknowledged non-liability. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The High Court held that complex issues on overlapping State and Central proceedings should be examined by the Appellate Authority. The Supreme Court has stayed the order after notice on the argument that duplicate proceedings are barred by statute.
The assessee alleged denial of opportunity and improper handling of evidence. The Tribunal agreed that the appellate order was passed without due consideration of records and remand findings. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a High Court order discharging an accused in a money laundering case. The ruling confirms that no grounds were made out to disturb the High Court’s assessment of the limited role attributed.
