The Tribunal held that section 13(1)(b) did not apply to a trust formed before 1961 and directed grant of registration. The key issue was whether activities for a Scheduled Caste community invalidated the application.
The Tribunal held that arrears of a deceased employee must be taxed only in the legal heir’s representative capacity. The assessment made solely in individual capacity was deleted.
The Tribunal directed fresh examination of whether the government allocation received by the assessee constituted a corpus fund under section 11(1)(d). It held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee’s submissions, requiring the matter to be verified afresh.
The ITAT Pune held that splitting royalties for domestic vs export sales was impermissible, deleting the entire transfer pricing adjustment. The ruling reinforces that TNMM aggregation for manufacturing includes royalties as a single element.
ITAT Delhi ruled that policy advocacy for EU businesses in India is charitable, as it has no profit motive and benefits the public. CIT(E)’s denial was set aside, and 12A registration restored.
ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer since the assessee’s application for delayed 12A registration and condonation under Section 119(2)(b) was still undecided. The ruling underscores that exemption eligibility must be re-examined only after the competent authority disposes of the registration request.
ITAT clarifies that capital gains arise on the date of JDA execution, not registration, and allows reassessment if the agreement is cancelled before possession transfer.
ITAT Kolkata upheld deletion of ₹8.70 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that proper evidence and confirmations by loan creditors absolved the assessee. Arbitrary AO findings cannot justify tax.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when books are accepted and payments are made through banking channels. The addition under section 69C was deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.
The AO treated all commission and part of rent as bogus due to limited vouchers, no TDS, and identity gaps. The Tribunal found this approach inconsistent with the AO’s own initial proposal and disproportionate to the business realities of land-development. It concluded that only estimated disallowances of 20% commission and 50% rent were appropriate.
