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 appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to a 43-day delay in filing. ITAT held that medical records substantiated the assessee’s health issues and restored the appeal for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that a genuine and reasonable explanation for delay justified condonation of nearly three years. It emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical limitations when no mala fide intent is established.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 154 to withdraw deduction on interest income from co-operative banks. Since the issue is subject to differing judicial interpretations, it falls outside the scope of rectification.
The Tribunal ruled that booking a residential flat and making substantial payments toward its acquisition can amount to a purchase for Section 54F purposes. Registration at a later date does not automatically defeat the exemption claim.
ITAT ruled that employees opting for the BSNL VRS Scheme, 2019 are entitled to full exemption under Section 10(10B) on retrenchment compensation. The decision rejects the view that exemption should be capped at ₹5 lakh under Section 10(10C).
The Tribunal observed that the trust had eventually filed Form 10 and sought condonation of delay. Since the issue was pending before the competent authority, the exemption dispute was restored for reconsideration.
ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB cannot be rejected merely because the Assessing Officer or Range Head did not recommend approval. The CIT(E) must independently examine the trust’s objects, activities, and legal compliance before arriving at a decision.
