ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s B & B Infotech Ltd. vs. ITO that once P&L A/c is admittedly prepared as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, then neither the AO has any power to tinker with it nor the assessee is permitted to claim exclusion or inclusion of any item of income
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s Sai Bhagwan Traders vs. ITO held that unaccounted purchases cannot be added to the total income as unexplained investments when there was no discreoency found in stock records.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of DDIT (Exemptions) vs. Ohio University Christ College that it is not disputed that the services have been rendered by the faculty members from Ohio University in India as the classes were taken in Bangalore.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Agila Specialties Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT that when the data is available showing profit margin of that enterprise itself from a third party, it is always safe and advisable to adopt internal comparable.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Ravi Spice Processors P. Ltd vs. ACIT that amendment to Sec. 40(a) (ia) whereby a second proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which state that if the payee has considered the income in return of income and tax has been paid by the payee
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M.R Pattabhiram (HUF) vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Wealth tax that mere conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture could not be taken as the sole criteria to hold it as a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income tax act.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Nanda Gokula vs. CIT held that denial of registration u/s 12AA by the CIT by considering only the ancillary objects is unfair, because it is the main objects of the trust which are required to be tested for their charitable nature.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Ltd. held that the excess expenditure incurred in earlier previous years can be set off against the income of trust for the current year as an application of income because Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT that there is no human intervention involved in providing roaming services, therefore, roaming charges paid by the assessee do not amount to fee for technical services u/s 194J.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Makino India Pvt. Ltd. that the relief under Section 10A is in the nature of exemption even though termed as deduction. The profits from such 10A units are neither subject to the charge of income tax nor includible in total income.
