The issue was whether External Development Charges paid to a statutory authority attract TDS. The Tribunal held that such payments are subject to section 194C, following binding High Court precedent.
The issue was whether renting out an auditorium made a theatre trust commercial in nature. The Tribunal held that such receipts did not defeat charitable status and upheld ex-emption under sections 11 and 12.
The issue was whether software development and start-up consultancy could qualify as charitable purposes. The Tribunal held that such activities are commercial in nature and do not fall under section 2(15), justifying denial of registration.
The issue was whether reassessment could survive when the mandatory section 148 no-tice was sent to an old address. The Tribunal held that improper service vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the entire reassessment void.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received for grant of non-exclusive broadcasting rights of feature films cannot be termed as “royalty” within the parameters of “royalty” as defined in Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order set aside.
Karnataka High Court held that the power of revocation of detention orders is specifically vested with the Central Government and not with the detaining authority under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [COFEPOSA Act].
The issue was whether additions could survive when the sole reason for reopening was not challenged. The ITAT held that without a valid reopening foundation, no other additions are sustainable.
The Tribunal held that CSR contributions received with strict donor directions and refund obligations may constitute tied-up grants rather than freely available income. Such funds require factual examination before taxing them under section 11.
The issue was whether year-old cash withdrawals could explain demonetisation-era deposits. ITAT held that absence of a direct nexus and contrary bank entries justified addition under section 69A.
The Tribunal held that denial of cross-examination of the third party, whose documents were relied upon, violates principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapse renders additions under section 69B legally invalid.
