ITAT Bangalore ruled that rejection of an 80G registration application merely for quoting the wrong section code violated principles of natural justice. The authority was directed to consider the corrected application on merits.
Pune ITAT ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments with cooperative banks is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The decision reinforces the broad scope of the provision.
The Delhi ITAT held that liabilities already written back and offered to tax in later years cannot be taxed again under Section 41(1). The Tribunal ruled that such an addition would result in impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings cannot survive when reasons recorded for reopening demonstrate non-application of mind. Following the Delhi High Court’s findings in the preceding year, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding non-compliance with Section 14A(2).
The Bangalore ITAT held that Section 54 relief cannot be denied when capital gains are invested in a new residential house before filing the return under Section 139(4). The Tribunal ruled that such investment satisfies the statutory requirement even without a prior deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.
The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee need not prove that a debt has actually become irrecoverable to claim a bad debt deduction. The Tribunal ruled that a proper write-off in the books of account is enough to qualify for the deduction.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a Section 40A(3) disallowance cannot be made on the assumption that cash payments might have exceeded statutory limits. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that records showed payments were made through banking channels.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act covers attempts to obtain undue advantage through subordinates or third parties. The key takeaway is that public officials cannot avoid liability by using intermediaries.
The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained where the tax department failed to establish actual receipt of interest income. The key takeaway is that presumptions and notings in seized documents cannot substitute proof of income.
