The Tribunal ruled that a clerical mistake in the DRP’s order could not justify sustaining a ₹10 lakh addition. It held that the Assessing Officer should have implemented the DRP’s directions in substance and deleted the entire addition.
The Tribunal ruled that although CSR expenditure is not allowable under Section 37, eligible donations made to recognised institutions can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G. The assessee’s claim was allowed for eligible donations.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in the assessment order. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, both pnalties were cancelled.
The Tribunal held that a 25% ad hoc disallowance of agricultural expenses was unjustified since the assessee furnished bills, vouchers, bank statements, and detailed expense records. It directed deletion of the entire disallowance.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 252-day delay after finding that the assessees legal representatives had shown sufficient cause arising from illness, death and family disputes. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without evaluating the delay condonation application and restored the matter for decision on merits.
The ITAT Bangalore held that interest earned on compulsory statutory deposits made under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act constitutes business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It set aside the orders denying the deduction.
Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 without proof of statutory violations. The Tribunal followed binding precedent in the assessee’s own case and upheld its charitable status.
The ITAT remanded the foreign tax credit claim to the CIT(A) after noting that the assessee had subsequently furnished the documents required under Rule 128. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the claim on merits after granting a hearing.
Bangalore ITAT held that mine development expenditure incurred by a mining contractor was allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37 and not governed by Section 35E. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Bangalore ITAT held that BSNL employees who received retrenchment compensation under the 2019 VRS were entitled to exemption under Section 10(10B) and full leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA). The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and granted relief on merits.
