May 2026

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, allowed three appeals by M/s. G M Souharda Pattina Sahakara Nyt, a credit co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2020-21. The core issue was the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal, relying on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Karnataka State Souharda Federal Co-operative Ltd., held that the assessee is a co-operative society under section 2(19) and entitled to the deduction. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source, being attributable to business income, would also qualify for deduction. All three appeals were allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.

In this landmark judgment, the Madras High Court clarified the scope of ‘used’ under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for depreciation claims. The assessee, Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., installed a Gas Sweetening Plant in AY 1997-98, which was commissioned with a test run but remained idle in AY 1998-99 due to non-availability of sour gas. The Revenue denied depreciation, arguing the plant was not ‘actually used’. The Court, upholding the Tribunal’s majority view, held that ‘used’ encompasses passive use where an asset is kept ready for deployment but cannot be actively utilized due to extraneous circumstances. This decision reinforces that depreciation is not contingent on active employment alone but on the asset’s readiness and integration into the business operations, provided the hindrance is beyond the assessee’s control. It provides critical guidance for industries facing operational delays, ensuring tax fairness while aligning with judicial precedents on statutory interpretation.

In this landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court established a crucial precedent shielding taxpayers from dual jeopardy in tax prosecutions. The Court quashed criminal proceedings under section 276C of the Income Tax Act after the CIT(A) had already set aside the penalty order, emphasizing that when departmental authorities accept an exoneration order as final, pursuing criminal liability on identical facts constitutes an abuse of process. This decision reinforces the principle that tax prosecutions cannot survive when the foundational penalty has been legally vacated, providing significant protection against harassment through parallel proceedings.

The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee’s appeal, quashing the reassessment order passed u/s 147 for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued after four years from the end of the assessment year was invalid because the reasons recorded did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, as required by the proviso to section 147. The addition of bad debts of INR 2,91,40,265/- was thus deleted. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Techspan India Pvt. Ltd., among others.

In this transfer pricing appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the assessee’s contentions. It excluded two comparables (Kals and Sasken) from the software development services segment, citing functional differences and extraordinary financial events. The Tribunal remanded the intra-group services issue for fresh consideration with additional evidence. It allowed 60% depreciation on printers, scanners, and NT servers, aligning them with computer peripherals. Additionally, it treated license fees paid to the AE as revenue expenditure, deleting the addition. The decision reinforces principles of comparability analysis, depreciation classification, and expenditure characterization in international transactions.

In this landmark judgment, the Madras High Court reinforced key principles in Indian tax law: (1) Expenditures incurred for issuing debentures and collecting fixed deposits are deductible as revenue expenses when intrinsically linked to business operations, following the ‘business purpose’ test established in India Cements. (2) Depreciation claims on standby machinery are permissible even if assets are not actively deployed during the assessment year, provided they constitute integral business assets. The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, affirming the Tribunal’s pro-taxpayer stance and highlighting the consistency of judicial interpretation in favoring business necessity over technical disallowances.

The ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee’s appeal against the reassessment order for AY 2012-13, holding that the AO’s failure to dispose of the assessee’s objections to the reasons for reopening the assessment, as required by the procedure in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) vs. DCIT, which held that non-disposal of objections by a speaking order makes the assessment order unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this legal ground, and other issues were not adjudicated.

In this landmark transfer pricing ruling, the Mumbai ITAT delivered a significant victory for investment advisory service providers by establishing clear functional comparability standards. The Tribunal meticulously analyzed two key comparables – Motilal Oswal Investment Advisories and ICRA Online Ltd. – and excluded both due to fundamental functional dissimilarities. The decision reinforces the principle that merchant banking/investment banking entities cannot be compared with simple non-binding investment advisory service providers, and companies with multiple business segments must demonstrate segmental comparability. This ruling provides crucial guidance for benchmarking investment advisory services and establishes important precedents for functional analysis in transfer pricing matters.