ITAT directed Revenue to allow Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for AY 2017-18, which was disallowed on the ground that Form 67 was not filed within the due date along with the return of income; Even though, the form 67 was filed later on, assessee had claimed the foreign tax credit in his return of income; Relied on co-ordinate bench order in 42 Hertz Software India wherein it was held that one of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC was filing of Form 67 before filing of the returns, however this requirement cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory in nature; Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67.

High Court (HC) held that assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(38) of Rs. 247.52 Cr in respect of long term capital gain earned on sale of shares which were not taken into account for computing book profits u/s 115JB; Proviso to Section 10(38) abundantly clarifies that the income from capital gains, which are excluded from the income under Section 10(38) would nonetheless, be included in computing book profits for the purposes of Section 115JB, however the proviso cannot be read in the reverse.

ITAT quashed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B being invalid on account of sanction u/s 151 given by an authority that was not vested with jurisdiction to grant such approval; Issue of sanctioning authority is no more res integra in view of SC decision in Rajeev Bansal and categorically held that the sanctioning authority shall be decided as prescribed amended Section 151 (new regime); The sanctioning authority that granted approval u/s 151(ii) (new regime) was the PCIT that did not have jurisdiction in the present case; Revenue is misplaced and misconstrued in its submission that the prescribed authority is PCIT-1, Raipur, as the directions rendered by SC are clear and clarify that the provisions of amended Section 151 are applicable in cases where the Revenue has availed the benefit of extended time limit under TOLA and proceeded to reopen assessment under the provisions of new regime. The reassessment was based on alleged unexplained income of Rs. 1.22 crores under Section 69A, citing transactions with a shell entity. The sanction for reopening u/s 151 was granted by the PCIT-1, Raipur.

ITAT allowed deduction u/s 80P on account of interest income from fixed deposits maintained in a commercial bank (ICICI) by Assessee (a cooperative society) out of its own funds; Distinguishes Revenue's reliance on SC judgment in Totgars Co-operative Sales and observes that in the said case deals with the deposits of the amount due to its members and therefore, deduction under Section 80P(2) could not be granted, wherein the present case, the Assessee has established that the amounts invested are the surplus of the Assessee and does not belongs to the members.

Reassessment u/s 148 quashed by the ITAT over non-disposal of assessee's objection against reopening of assessment by the AO, in gross violation of Supreme Court ruling GKN Driveshafts; The AO has passed the assessment order without disposing of the objections filed by the Assessee for the reopening, which is not valid as per the Bombay HC judgment in KSS Petron case wherein the reassessment was held to be without jurisdiction and in gross violation of SC judgment in GKN Driveshaft and the Revenue's contention of de novo adjudication was also rejected.

Madras HC held that as far as the assessment, re-assessment or re-computation in terms of the provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act are concerned, both the FAO as well as the JAO will have concurrent jurisdiction; However, as far as the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT is concerned, only the JAO will have exclusive jurisdiction; NaFAC will have no role to play in issuance of Section 148 notice and to get prior approval from higher Authorities in terms of Section 151; HC acknowledged assessee's submission that the name of the Officer ought not to have been mentioned in the notice, which as per the HC was a mere procedural error.

ITAT observed that since the assessee provided technical services and received payments having source in India, the income was liable to be taxed u/s 9(1)(vii); Assessee company a resident for tax purposes in UK, received Rs. 2.93 Cr. for services provided for converting raw data into e-form and ITR was not filed; Assessee had granted the right to use this cloud-based services facility to Genpact India who in turn made payment of Rs. 3.31 Cr. to the Assessee; Assessee is a non-resident having income arising from India and is liable to tax in India if the source is in India which is dealt by provisions of Section 5(2) r.w. Section 9.

ITAT held that PCIT had rightly initiated revisionary proceedings u/s 263 as the claim of depreciation on Goodwill was not examined by the AO during assessment; Assessee acquired a business on a slump sale basis & payment in excess of the assets acquired was treated as goodwill; Once the assessment order passed u/s 143 r.w.s. 144B is set aside for de novo adjudication on limited issue, the observations pertaining to PCIT finding on merits on depreciation on Goodwill become irrelevant and AO is required to adjudicate the issue as per law.

ITAT held that AO cannot reject the DCF method without giving any substantial reasons, and thus accepted assessee's valuation; AO made primary addition under the deeming provisions of Section 56(1)(viib) and simultaneously made the same addition u/s 68; DCF method is well recognized and accepted method for valuation of shares even prior to Rule 11UA and therefore cannot be rejected merely on ground that the variables taken by the valuer cannot be accepted; AO cannot tinker with the method adopted by the Assessee and simply apply the NAV method; AO is not an expert to carry out such valuation without pointing out what factors should be applied in projections or what is the error formula.

Addition u/s 68 on account of capital advance refund received through banking channel cannot be sustained solely on the ground that the parties who refunded the advance are different from those to whom the advances were given; Assessee discharged its primary onus and gave PAN, address, confirmation, etc. and the Revenue failed to verify the same by issuing summons u/s 131; Further, on the issue of disallowance of depreciation, ITAT notes that Assessee had invited the Revenue to conduct physical verification of assets which was denied by the AO, and disallowance of depreciation was unjustified.