The ITAT Bangalore held that advances written off were allowable as bad debts since the assessee was engaged in financing and lending activities as part of its regular business operations.
: ITAT Bangalore held that indexed cost of construction cannot be denied merely because the sale deed described the property as a vacant plot. The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence such as rental income records, approved plans, contractor confirmations, and TDS details to establish existence of the building.
ITAT Bangalore held that rebate under Section 87A cannot be denied on short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A where total income is below Rs. 7 lakh. The Tribunal ruled that no statutory prohibition existed during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains taxable under Section 112 form part of total income and qualify for Section 87A rebate if the prescribed income limit is satisfied. It also held that Finance Act 2025 amendments restricting the rebate are prospective.
The Bangalore ITAT deleted disallowance on transport expenses incurred across India through drivers and local agents. The ruling emphasized that practical realities of the transport industry cannot be ignored while assessing business expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding that the assessee had no knowledge of the assessment proceedings due to missed email notices. The assessment was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that workload and assessment proceedings alone cannot justify extraordinary delay in filing an appeal. The Revenues appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to lack of convincing explanation.
The Tribunal ruled that pursuing a rectification remedy before filing an appeal constituted sufficient cause for delay. The CIT(A)s dismissal of the appeal on limitation was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal observed that CBDT instructions prohibit the AO from examining issues beyond the specific reason for limited scrutiny without proper approval. Additions relating to non-demonetisation cash deposits were therefore restricted.
Bangalore ITAT held that once ownership of agricultural land and cultivation activities are accepted, reasonable agricultural income cannot be rejected altogether. The Tribunal allowed relief for income from rubber plantation activities.
