ITAT Bangalore Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO is to re-adjudicate the issues in light of the evidence filed by the assessee after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO is to re-adjudicate the issues in light of the evidence filed by the assessee after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts. It further clarified that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation as application of income, is prospective in nature and applies from April 1, 2015.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted the required details, but it was not considered by the CIT(E) as it was addressed to the ITO(E). Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation as application of income, is prospective from April 1, 2015.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted the required details, but it was not considered by the CIT(E) as it was addressed to the ITO(E). Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they received relief in the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts, accumulation of income should be on gross receipts, and excess application of income can be carried forward. These decisions were based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal confirmed the DRP's order, holding that if expenses are excluded from export turnover, they should also be excluded from total turnover. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the Tata Elxsi case.