ITAT referred to SC’s judgment in CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, which stated that an entity could claim both depreciation and application of income on asset in its purchase year.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F unjustified as no steps were taken to convert the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny. Accordingly, disallowance deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that payments received by assessee towards interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers / end users cannot be considered as Royalty / FTS to be brought to tax in India under section 9(1)(vi)/(vii) of the Act and also as per DTAA.
ITAT Bangalore reviews Behra Gopal Krishna Rao’s case, highlighting the challenge of email notices for individuals unfamiliar with computers. Details inside.
ITAT Bangalore held that PCIT duly invoked provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order was passed by AO without carrying out necessary enquiry/verification.
ITAT Bangalore held that section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act provides deduction to co-operative society from income earned by way of interest/ dividends from its investment with any other co-operative society.
ITAT Bangalore held that weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable for expenditure incurred on scientific research as the same are not certified by DSIR. However, such expenditure are allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act.
Employer’s and employee’s contributions to PF are treated differently under the Income Tax Act. While the delay in employee’s contribution permanently negates the employer’s claim for deduction, the delay in employer’s contribution only results in the deferment of deduction under Section 43B.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest paid towards refund of excess claim of duty drawback is not in the nature of penalty or fine. Accordingly, provisions of Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the I.T. Act not violated.
Overview and analysis of the ITAT Bangalore’s decision to direct re-adjudication due to the assessee’s unfamiliarity with the ITBA portal in the Krishnan Sivaprasad vs ITO case.
