In this landmark ITAT decision, the Tribunal robustly affirmed the rights of charitable institutions under the Income Tax Act. It established a critical precedent that depreciation is allowable for trusts u/s 11, rejecting the Revenue’s ‘double deduction’ argument by distinguishing between income computation and application of funds. Simultaneously, it reinforced the ‘real income’ doctrine, shielding assessees from tax on contested receivables from government entities. The judgment underscores judicial consistency, commercial reality, and the practical functioning of charitable organizations, delivering a comprehensive victory for the respondent trust on both substantive legal issues.

In this ITAT judgment, the assessee’s appeal addressed two key issues: disallowance of expenses/depreciation for personal use and eligibility of surrendered survey income for deduction under section 80-IA. The Tribunal upheld the principle of proportionate disallowance under section 38(2) but reduced it from 1/6 to 1/8. Crucially, it denied the section 80-IA deduction, ruling that surrendered income must have a direct nexus with the eligible business, which the assessee failed to prove, as the unrecorded cash lacked evidentiary link to the industrial undertaking. The decision reinforces the burden of proof on assessees for deduction claims and distinguishes between business income and income from other sources in survey contexts.

In this landmark reassessment jurisdiction case, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against Ardent Steel Ltd. for AY 2009-10. The Court established crucial precedents: (1) Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available to challenge reassessment notices when jurisdictional conditions are absent; (2) ‘Issue’ of notice under Section 149 requires actual dispatch to correct address within limitation period – not mere preparation; (3) Service of notice under Section 148 remains mandatory despite subsequent assessee participation. The judgment reinforces procedural safeguards against arbitrary reopening of assessments and clarifies the distinct requirements for issuance versus service of reassessment notices.

In a significant ruling on reassessment validity, the Delhi ITAT quashed proceedings against the assessee for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08, holding that the AO acted mechanically without independent verification. The AO relied on Investigation Wing information alleging unexplained cash deposits and investments but recorded factually incorrect reasons (overstating deposits by ~Rs. 1.6 crore) and failed to examine bank statements or property documents. The Tribunal, citing precedents like Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd., ruled that unverified information is not ‘tangible material’ and reassessment requires AO’s application of mind to specific facts. All additions were deleted without merit adjudication, reinforcing that reassessment cannot be based on suspicion or erroneous data.

In this landmark tax recovery judgment, the Karnataka High Court definitively settles that a prospective purchaser under an agreement to sell cannot challenge an auction sale of attached property under Income Tax recovery rules. The Court rigorously interprets Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, establishing that any dealing with attached property by a defaulter—including execution of sale agreements—is void. This creates an impenetrable barrier for third parties claiming affected interests under Rule 61. The decision reinforces the supremacy of tax recovery mechanisms over private contractual arrangements, ensuring that Revenue interests remain paramount during attachment proceedings. Legal practitioners must advise clients that purchasing property subject to tax attachment carries substantial risk, as such agreements confer no legally recognizable interest.

In this landmark transfer pricing dispute, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench ruled in favor of Bain Capital Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., overturning the adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The core issue revolved around the selection of comparable companies for benchmarking the arm’s length price of international transactions involving investment advisory services. The Tribunal meticulously examined the functional comparability of the disputed entities, applying established judicial precedents. It held that the TPO/DRP erroneously included Motilal Oswal Private Equity Advisors and Ladderup Corporate Advisory as comparables due to significant functional disparities, while wrongly excluding Cyber Media Research Ltd., which was deemed functionally appropriate. This decision reinforces the critical importance of precise functional analysis in transfer pricing and underscores the Tribunal’s role in ensuring consistency with prior rulings, providing clarity for multinational enterprises in the financial services sector.

In this landmark ITAT ruling, the Tribunal meticulously addressed key transfer pricing and corporate tax disputes for AY 2011-12. On the transfer pricing front, it reinforced the principle of functional comparability by excluding non-comparable companies and provided critical guidance on working capital adjustments, emphasizing that adjustments must reflect actual economic realities and not be arbitrarily restricted. The decision underscores the importance of consistent application of judicial precedents in ALP determinations. On corporate tax, it affirmed the uniform treatment of expenses in Section 10A deductions, aligning with Supreme Court jurisprudence. This judgment serves as a vital reference for multinational enterprises on benchmarking and compliance strategies in India’s transfer pricing regime.

In this landmark ITAT ruling, the bench clarified critical aspects of Section 10A deduction for software exporters. It upheld the CIT(A)’s parity principle, mandating that foreign exchange expenditure be deducted from both export and total turnover, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. For the assessee, it allowed the ground on foreign travel expenses, ruling that costs for software development and employee maintenance are not excludable ‘technical services.’ However, it firmly rejected the assessee’s claim on interest/forex income, reinforcing the strict ‘derived from’ nexus required for Section 10A, following apex court precedent. The decision balances export promotion intent with legislative precision, impacting deduction computations for IT/ITES sectors.