ITAT Bangalore rules skill development qualifies as education, allowing Sec 11 exemption to charitable trust. Rejects commercial activity view, follows Karnataka HC, and grants full tax relief.
Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that mere disallowance or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had: Shown rental income partly as rent and partly as hire charges (under business income) Claimed Section […]
ITAT Bangalore upholds restricting TP adjustment only to AE transactions, dismissing Revenues appeal. Confirms capacity, working capital adjustments and consistency in forex/provision treatment.
The case examines whether penalty applies when a deduction claim is disallowed. ITAT held that full disclosure and bona fide claim prevent penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The case addressed whether agricultural income claims can be rejected due to lack of initial evidence. ITAT held that substantial supporting documents cannot be ignored and remanded the matter for fresh verification. The ruling emphasizes fair consideration of evidence.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by relying on binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. It ruled that prior judicial decisions in the assessee’s own case justified deletion of disallowance.
The case examined classification of bank interest earned by a credit co-operative society. The Tribunal ruled it is business income and not income from other sources. The decision allows full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The issue involved eligibility of interest from employee loans. The tribunal ruled that such income is not directly linked to core credit activity. Therefore, it is taxable as income from other sources
The issue involved taxability of interest earned from statutory deposits. The tribunal held that such income is attributable to business activities and qualifies for deduction. This highlights the importance of statutory obligations in determining tax treatment.
The issue involved wrong filing of Form 10BB instead of 10B. The tribunal held that correction before processing cures the defect. This ensures that genuine claims are not denied on technical grounds.
