The AO accepted documents but still made an addition without pointing out defects. The Tribunal ruled that section 68 requires adverse findings, not assumptions.
The CAAR Delhi examined whether annuloplasty rings qualify as artificial body parts. It ruled that since the device only supports an existing heart valve annulus and does not replace anatomy, classification lies under the residual medical implant category.
The Tribunal examined whether delayed filing of Form 67 can defeat a valid FTC claim. It ruled that Rule 128(9) is directory and FTC cannot be denied when substantive conditions are met.
The CPC taxed interest solely based on Form 26AS despite the assessee following the cash method. The Tribunal ruled that taxation requires verification of receipt and remanded the issue to the AO.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice for AY 2015–16 issued after 31 March 2022 was valid. The Tribunal held the notice time-barred and quashed the entire reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT held that reversal of MSMED Act interest cannot be taxed if the provision was never claimed as a deduction. The matter was remanded for verification, with directions to delete the addition if the claim is confirmed.
The ITAT held that penalty cannot be imposed where a capital loss claim was voluntarily withdrawn during assessment. Since no tax benefit was availed, the case did not attract section 271(1)(c).
The dispute concerned the head of taxation for interest received on enhanced land compensation. The Tribunal ruled that Section 28 interest is an accretion to compensation and cannot be assessed as income from other sources.
The ITAT held that cash expenditure cannot be disallowed merely by aggregating payments. Since no payment to any person on a single day crossed the statutory limit, the disallowance was deleted.
The issue was whether interest-free loans to group entities warranted transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal held that since business had not commenced and no income was earned, the adjustment was unsustainable.
