The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 days violates mandatory provisions, rendering the notice and entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
ITAT Bangalore holds Rule 7B governs coffee income, not Rule 7, and remands case for segregation of own-grown vs purchased coffee. Clarifies 40% taxable business income and limits agricultural exemption.
The tribunal examined whether duty drawback should be taxed on accrual or actual receipt. It held that as per law, duty drawback is taxable only in the year of receipt, and additions based on accrual were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that advances received under an uncompleted sale agreement are not taxable. Income arises only when transfer or forfeiture occurs.
ITAT Bangalore rules skill development qualifies as education, allowing Sec 11 exemption to charitable trust. Rejects commercial activity view, follows Karnataka HC, and grants full tax relief.
Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that mere disallowance or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had: Shown rental income partly as rent and partly as hire charges (under business income) Claimed Section […]
ITAT Bangalore upholds restricting TP adjustment only to AE transactions, dismissing Revenues appeal. Confirms capacity, working capital adjustments and consistency in forex/provision treatment.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed due to lack of clarity and inconsistency.
The Tribunal examined whether an increase in loans was due to fresh borrowing or reclassification. It remanded the matter for verification, holding that no addition is warranted if no new funds were received.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. It remanded the matter for reconsideration after the earlier year’s decision.
