Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shetty Constructions v. ACIT has held that rejection of books of account is a precondition for making reference to the DVO.
Shri. Vardhan Vishwanath Vijaya Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In so far as the credit for taxes paid in US is concerned, one of the requirements is that the assessee has to file Form 67 which was filed before the AO only after the date of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Filing of Form […]
ITAT held that that section 80A(5) of the Act is applicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under Chapter VI A of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a case where no return of income is filed.
Explore Jayaprakasha Rai appeal against ITAT Bangalore order on TCS credit denial for Assessment Year 2018-19. Detailed analysis and implications discussed.
There is no condition in section 32 that depreciation on plant and machinery is allowable only if they are used in the factory for manufacturing/production process. Assets like air conditioners, telephones, Samsung tab, office equipments and canteen equipments are in the nature of plant and machinery. Depreciation under section 32 is allowed.
In a recent decision, ITAT Bangalore grants deduction for employees contribution to PF and ESI, citing judicial pronouncements. Learn about the case and its implications.
Prathamika Krushi Pattina Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that sources for making deposit of Rs.36.36 lakhs by the assessee whoo is a primary agricultural credit co-operative society into its bank account are the money collected from its members. The AO is also not […]
The CPC has taken the view that the said incomes are assessable as house property income/other sources income. However, the assessee has considered the same as business income. The view so taken by CPC is debatable one. In any case, it is established that there is no omission on the part of the assessee to include both the income in its gross receipts. Hence the adjustments made by CPC u/s 143(1) are liable to be deleted.
Padagouda Hanamanthgouda Patil Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT noticed that assessee has filed his return of income on 15.10.2018. However, it is the submission of the assessee that the GST amount cited above was paid on 16.10.2018. Hence by the time, the return of income was filed, the assessee has not paid the GST amount […]
Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]
