Siddhartha Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed. Facts- The assessee is a cooperative society registered under […]
ITAT Bangalore rules against using high-turnover IT giants as comparables for smaller captive service providers in transfer pricing, citing scale and brand value differences.
ITAT Bangalore allows a company to claim a deduction under Section 80G for a CSR donation, ruling that disallowance under Section 37 does not bar benefits under Chapter VIA.
ITAT Bangalore upholds income additions for Rajiv Venkatpathi Gowda after he failed to provide proof for unexplained bank deposits and admitted salary income.
The ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of HP India Sales, quashing major tax additions. The tribunal upheld the company’s consistent accounting practices for revenue recognition, discounts, and provisions, reinforcing mercantile principles.
The ITAT granted Lowe’s India partial relief, allowing an 80G deduction for CSR donations while correcting MAT profit and other disallowances. The transfer pricing issue was remanded for a fresh review.
The ITAT Bangalore deleted a Rs.23.77 Cr capitation fee addition and restored exemption u/s 11 for Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, ruling that uncorroborated documents and contradictory statements lack evidentiary value.
The ITAT Bangalore deleted additions and expense disallowance for an agriculturist, holding that they are not required to maintain books and their substantiated agricultural income cannot be treated as unexplained.
The ITAT Bangalore has quashed a reassessment order, ruling that a tax addition based on documents seized in a third-party search must be made under Section 153C, not 147.
ITAT Bangalore deletes ₹150+ crore additions, quashing assessment due to lack of incriminating material and multiple jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.
