The Tribunal noted that donations to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund made towards CSR obligations are specifically excluded under section 80G, while no similar embargo exists for other eligible institutions. Consequently, the assessee’s claim for deduction was allowed in full.
ITAT Bangalore allowed withdrawal of the appeal after the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The issue regarding LTCG being treated as business income was not decided on merits.
ITAT Bangalore upheld the CIT(A)’s decision that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were barred by limitation. The Tribunal found no error in relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling on reassessment timelines.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing appeals was justified where the assessee had shifted to a new PAN and filed returns under it. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Bangalore restored the issue of consultancy fee deduction to the Assessing Officer after noting that additional evidence relating to services rendered had not been examined. The Tribunal directed a fresh review of the expenditure claim in light of the new material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s objection regarding approval under Section 151 required consideration. The matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that once a Section 35D claim was accepted in earlier years, it could not be disallowed in the final amortization year without disturbing the original allowance. The disallowance of preliminary expenses was therefore delete
ITAT Bangalore ruled that rejection of an 80G registration application merely for quoting the wrong section code violated principles of natural justice. The authority was directed to consider the corrected application on merits.
The ITAT Bangalore held that a deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because the payment formed part of CSR expenditure. The Tribunal observed that denying the claim after CSR disallowance under Section 37(1) could result in double disallowance and remanded the matter for verification.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding non-compliance with Section 14A(2).
