ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Ravi Spice Processors P. Ltd vs. ACIT that amendment to Sec. 40(a) (ia) whereby a second proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which state that if the payee has considered the income in return of income and tax has been paid by the payee
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M.R Pattabhiram (HUF) vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Wealth tax that mere conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture could not be taken as the sole criteria to hold it as a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income tax act.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Nanda Gokula vs. CIT held that denial of registration u/s 12AA by the CIT by considering only the ancillary objects is unfair, because it is the main objects of the trust which are required to be tested for their charitable nature.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Ltd. held that the excess expenditure incurred in earlier previous years can be set off against the income of trust for the current year as an application of income because Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT that there is no human intervention involved in providing roaming services, therefore, roaming charges paid by the assessee do not amount to fee for technical services u/s 194J.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Makino India Pvt. Ltd. that the relief under Section 10A is in the nature of exemption even though termed as deduction. The profits from such 10A units are neither subject to the charge of income tax nor includible in total income.
M/s Tejas Networks Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per the provision of sec. 192 of the Income-tax Act 1961, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the payment made to Cadence Designs Systems Ireland .
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd held that creation of warranty Provision which is much higher than previous years provision cannot be disallowed without examining the scientific basis used by the assessee in working out the same.
ITAT Bangalore held in Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust Vs CIT that even if the objective of an organization was both religious and charitable then also registration u/s 12AA could not be denied on the basis that registration could only be granted either to wholly religious
Rights and liabilities of erstwhile company were transferred to new company, therefore, it was essential to move an application for filing on record the amended memo of parties and also to file a fresh Form 36, mentioning the amalgamation of the assessee company with new company to peruse appeals in the name of new entity. Since assessee despite directions given by the Bench, failed to file amended Form 36, Bench was left with no option but to dismiss the appeals.
