In this landmark ITAT ruling, the Tribunal decisively upheld the deductibility of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) expenses under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reinforcing that such discounts constitute legitimate employee remuneration and not notional capital expenditures. Simultaneously, it dismissed Revenue’s appeal on interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii), citing lack of proven nexus between borrowed funds and capital assets. This judgment provides critical clarity for corporates on ESOP accounting and interest capitalization, aligning with judicial precedents like Biocon Limited and assessee’s own case rulings, thereby reducing litigation risks for similar claims.

In this landmark ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, overturned the Commissioner’s revision under section 263, reinforcing that mere disagreement with the Assessing Officer’s enquiry does not warrant revision if the officer applied his mind. The Tribunal meticulously validated the jurisdictional transfer from New Delhi to Dehradun, upholding the assessment’s procedural integrity. Crucially, it emphasized that the Assessing Officer’s comprehensive scrutiny—including audit reports, third-party verifications, and technical evaluations—sufficed to justify the deduction under section 80IC for manufacturing drug-eluting stents. The decision curtails arbitrary use of revisionary powers, affirming that ‘erroneous’ orders must stem from tangible lapses, not perceived inadequacies. For professionals, this judgment underscores the importance of documented enquiries and the prospective nature of Explanation 2 to section 263, offering a robust defense against revisionary overreach in deduction claims.

In this landmark transfer pricing judgment, the Delhi ITAT delivered a decisive victory for Mentor Graphics (India) Pvt. Ltd. by applying the doctrine of consistency and binding precedents. The Tribunal excluded three key comparables (Infosys, KALS, Tata Elxsi) from the transfer pricing analysis, finding them functionally dissimilar to the assessee’s captive software development services. Crucially, the Tribunal held that when previous years’ decisions with identical facts excluded these comparables, and the department failed to show factual differences, the same outcome must follow. Additionally, the Tribunal resolved the Section 10A computation controversy by ruling that communication expenses must be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover, ensuring mathematical consistency in deduction calculation. This judgment reinforces the importance of functional comparability in transfer pricing and establishes clear precedent for handling recurring issues across assessment years.

In a landmark ruling on sales tax liability of charitable trusts, the Supreme Court held that the Sai Publication Fund, established to propagate Saibaba’s teachings, is not a ‘dealer’ under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959. The trust’s sale of religious literature at cost price was incidental to its primary charitable object and lacked commercial character. Despite amendments removing profit motive from the definition of ‘business’, the Court affirmed that incidental activities do not constitute business unless the main activity is trade or commerce, or there is independent business intent—neither of which applied here. This judgment reinforces the principle that charitable and religious activities, even if involving sales, are not per se taxable as business, protecting non-profit entities from sales tax on ancillary transactions.

In this landmark Transfer Pricing judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to exclude five companies from the comparables list for benchmarking arm’s length price of international transactions. The Court emphasized that functional dissimilarities between the comparables and the assessee’s market support services were factual determinations, not warranting interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. This ruling reinforces the principle that Transfer Pricing adjustments must be based on functionally comparable entities, and appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings absent perversity or legal error.

In this landmark judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)’s decision granting exemption to Hamdard Laboratories (India) under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal affirmed that charitable trusts can raise fresh exemption claims during appeals, supported by precedents like Mitesh Impex and Jute Corporation of India. Key findings include the trust’s eligibility under section 10(23C)(iv), no violation of section 13(2)(b) regarding concessional rent, and adherence to the consistency principle. This ruling reinforces the appellate authorities’ plenary powers and provides clarity on exemption claims for charitable institutions.

In this landmark ITAT Delhi decision, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(Exemptions)’s denial of section 12A registration to Bhartiya Kisan Sangh Sewa Niketan, a society advocating for farmers’ interests. The Tribunal robustly affirmed that protecting farmers—a significant demographic—constitutes ‘charitable purpose’ under section 2(15) as an object of general public utility. Critically, it clarified the jurisdictional scope: at the registration stage, authorities must only scrutinize the stated objects, not the application of income. The ruling reinforces precedent that benefiting a substantial public section suffices for charitable status, setting a vital precedent for agricultural and sectoral advocacy groups seeking tax-exempt registration.

In this landmark reassessment case, the Mumbai ITAT addressed the interplay between pending assessment proceedings and the validity of reassessment under amended tax law. The assessee, Meghraj Golecha, failed to file returns for AYs 1982-83 to 1985-86 despite searches revealing hawala activities and undisclosed income. After original assessments were set aside by CIT(A) and not revived, the AO issued fresh notices under section 148 in 1993. The assessee contested, citing precedent that reassessment is barred if proceedings are pending or time-barred. The Tribunal, however, applied the post-1989 amended section 147, which eliminates such barriers, requiring only AO’s ‘reason to believe’ income escaped assessment. It upheld the reassessment, emphasizing procedural changes and assessee’s non-cooperation, while adjusting quantum estimates. This decision clarifies the retrospective application of amended reassessment provisions, impacting tax evasion cases with delayed compliance.