Bangalore ITAT held that unsigned loose sheets, scribblings, and rough jottings without corroborative evidence cannot form the sole basis for tax additions. The Tribunal deleted the protective additions linked to alleged capitation fee receipts.
The Tribunal ruled that surplus funds parked in banks by a co-operative credit society retain the character of business income when linked to member credit activities. Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was therefore allowed.
Bangalore ITAT held that interest paid on a housing loan can be treated as part of the cost of acquisition where no deduction was claimed under house property income. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow indexed benefit on such interest expenditure.
Mumbai ITAT held that once receipts reflected in Form 26AS are assessed as taxable income, corresponding TDS credit cannot be denied on technical grounds. The AO was directed to verify records and grant due credit.
The Tribunal held that levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified in a case involving deemed rental income addition. It observed that the legal position on the issue was debatable during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s claim that the opening capital figure in the earlier ITR was wrongly reported due to omissions of FDRs and bank balances. Since the assets already existed in the preceding year, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a genuine clerical mistake in Form 10 cannot deprive a charitable trust of exemption under Section 11(2) when the accumulation claim was properly disclosed elsewhere and corrected before assessment completion.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 153C notice issued beyond the statutory ten-year period could not survive in law. The assessment order passed pursuant to such notice was therefore annulled as time-barred.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the co-operative housing society’s deduction claim under Section 80P(2)(d). The ruling emphasized that the claim required proper factual verification instead of outright rejection.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot survive where ledger accounts, bank statements, and lender confirmations establish genuine banking transactions. Mere suspicion arising from search information was held insufficient.
