Tribunal held that charitable or religious trusts that have surrendered their registration and do not claim benefits under Section 11 are to be taxed at normal slab rates applicable to AOPs, not at the maximum marginal rate. The ruling relied on CBDT Circular No. 320 of 1982.
ITAT Hyderabad held that Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] doesn’t have jurisdiction to scrutinize the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition made by AO on account of TP adjustment is not sustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that the ₹33.12 crore received by a co-founder to settle disputes and relinquish the right to sue for promised equity is a non-taxable capital receipt. The court ruled the payment wasn’t salary, business income, or capital gains, as the ‘right to sue’ isn’t a transferable capital asset.
ITAT Mumbai quashed search assessments under Section 153C, ruling that a single, non-speaking, and mechanical approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessment years is invalid.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting additions for AY 2013–14, ruling that year fell outside six-year block under Section 153C based on satisfaction date in FY 2021–22.
The Tribunal held that detailed inquiries by the AO made Section 263 inapplicable and upheld the assessee’s claims for capital loss and bad debts on merits.
AO was wrong in disallowing the entire direct expenditure claimed towards sub-contractors for stevedoring and transport services and at the same time, assessee had not proved beyond doubt that the expenditure claimed was fully genuine. Considering all these inconsistencies, CIT(A) righlyl disallowed 20% of the expenditure claimed.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue’s appeal, confirming that Rs.14.11 crore surplus from perpetual sale of film rights, copyrights, and intellectual property to a third party should be taxed as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), not Business Income.
In the case of Deepak Jain v. Income Tax Department, the ITAT Delhi held that the BMA cannot be applied to foreign companies and bank accounts that ceased to exist before 1 July 2015, and that once proceedings were pursued under the IT Act rather than the BMA, the revenue may not shift to BMA under doctrine of election.
Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and supported by evidence, entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element can be added, restricting disallowance to ₹8,075 as per Bombay High Court’s ruling in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co.
