The ITAT Chennai restored the assessment matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee’s condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was still pending. The Tribunal held that the decision on condonation directly affected eligibility for deduction under Section 80P.
ITAT Chennai held that before the 2016 amendment, DSIR approval under Section 35(2AB) related to the in-house R&D facility and not yearly expenditure quantification. The Tribunal upheld full weighted deduction despite partial approval in Form 3CL.
The Chennai ITAT held that transfer pricing benchmarking cannot ignore extraordinary business circumstances arising from the shutdown of a major customer. The Tribunal upheld deletion of TP adjustment after accepting that sale of goods to the AE was a distress sale triggered by Nokia India’s closure.
The Tribunal found that the transfer pricing adjustment was incorrectly computed using SEB sale rates. It allowed deduction based on consumer tariff rates. The decision clarifies benchmarking for captive consumption.
The issue involved unexplained bank credits treated under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that the assessee proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, leading to deletion of the addition.
The case dealt with rejection of books due to unverifiable expenses and lack of supporting records. The ITAT upheld rejection but found 8% profit estimation excessive. It reduced the rate to 5%, emphasizing fairness in estimation.
The Tribunal held that activities linked to micro-credit and welfare schemes do not negate charitable status in absence of profit motive. The ruling directs grant of 80G approval based on genuine charitable objectives.
The case examined whether property registered in trustees’ names violated Section 13(1)(c). The Tribunal held no violation as no benefit accrued to trustees, allowing exemption under Section 11.
The case involved disallowance of deduction under Section 80P due to delayed return filing. The Tribunal ruled that the issue must be reconsidered after the authority decides the condonation request.
The Tribunal held that limited religious spending within 5% does not bar 80G approval. The key takeaway is that incidental religious activity does not negate charitable status.
