ITAT Bangalore

No section 271(1)(c) penalty on mere making of unsustainable claim

Tecnotree Convergence Ltd. [now Tecnotree Convergence Private Limited] Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as mere making of a claim which was not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee....

Read More

Claim of non-recovery of advances to employees/vendors as business loss was remanded back to AO.

Xchanging Solutions Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Giving advance to the employees as well as vendors were essential and wholly and exclusively linked to the business of the assessee. Since AO had not examined the claim of deduction u/s 37(1) r.w.s. 28, it was deemed appropriate to restore the issue to the files of AO for de novo consideration....

Read More

ITAT restores issue of Eligibility to claim depreciation on goodwill to AO

TUV Rheinland NIFE Academy Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Since excess amount paid over and above the net asset value on acquiring a business concern should constitute goodwill however, eligibility of assessee to claim depreciation on Goodwill to AO was restored after affording adequate opportunity of hearing....

Read More

Section 14A disallowance restricted to exempt income earned during the year

GMR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

It is settled position of law that disallowance cannot exceed the amount of dividend income earned during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act needs to be restricted to the extent of exempted income earned during the relevant assessment year....

Read More

Reclamation & rehabilitation expenditure allowable under section 37(1)

P. Venganna Setty and Brothers Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Held expenditure of reclamation and rehabilitation had to be allowed as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Act as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the business of the assessee....

Read More

Guarantee Commission is not a ‘Levy’ for Disallowance u/s 40(a)(iib): ITAT

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Guarantee commission not ‘Levy’ for the purposes of disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) of the IT Act ITAT held that guarantee commission paid in consideration for the state government agreeing to suffer a detriment in the event of non-payment of the bonds on its maturity a...

Read More

Depreciation allowable on home-theatre used for business purpose

DCIT Vs Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)

Claim of depreciation on the home-theatre used for the business purpose is allowable in law - In absence of nexus between the borrowed funds and outstanding amount of the sister-concern, addition is not sustainable....

Read More

Amendment in section 36(1)(va) & 43B applicable from 01.04.2021

Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (ITAT Banglore)

Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (ITAT Banglore) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has taken the view that employee’s contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act would also be covered under section 43B of the Act and therefore if the share of the employee’s...

Read More

Comparables with turnover less than Rs. 200 Cr cannot be compared with comparables having turnover more than Rs. 200 Cr.

Galax E Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Galax E Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that companies having turnover more than 200 crores upto 500 crores has to be regarded as one category and those companies cannot be regarded as comparables with companies having turnover of less than 200 crores. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE […]...

Read More

Amendment in section 43B & 36 cannot be applied retrospectively

Jana Urban Services For Transformation Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Jana Urban Services For Transformation Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The ld.DR contention is that as per sec.43B(b) of the Income-tax Act and explanatory notes to Finance Act 1983, that Employees’ Contribution was never intended to be covered by sec.43B. This has been reiterated and reinforced through Explanation 5 to sec.43B and E...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,807)
Company Law (7,811)
Custom Duty (8,842)
DGFT (4,671)
Excise Duty (4,562)
Fema / RBI (4,901)
Finance (5,283)
Income Tax (38,962)
SEBI (4,219)
Service Tax (3,821)

Search Posts by Date

December 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031