The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer for taking a contrary stand in later years after allowing the same deduction on identical facts in an earlier assessment. It held that such inconsistent treatment without distinguishing facts was unsustainable.
The ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) could not survive once the recipient of the income settled the tax dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The ruling relied on CBDT Circular No.19/2024 and FAQ No.58 granting consequential relief to the deductor.
The Bangalore Bench held that filing Form No. 10B along with the return is directory and not mandatory in circumstances where the audit report becomes available during appeal proceedings. Relief under Sections 11 and 12A was restored.
ITAT held that loose sheets showing cash and cheque transactions could not justify additions under Section 153A where related cheque transactions were accepted as genuine and linked to group business dealings.
The ITAT Bangalore held that advances written off were allowable as bad debts since the assessee was engaged in financing and lending activities as part of its regular business operations.
: ITAT Bangalore held that indexed cost of construction cannot be denied merely because the sale deed described the property as a vacant plot. The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence such as rental income records, approved plans, contractor confirmations, and TDS details to establish existence of the building.
ITAT Bangalore held that rebate under Section 87A cannot be denied on short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A where total income is below Rs. 7 lakh. The Tribunal ruled that no statutory prohibition existed during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains taxable under Section 112 form part of total income and qualify for Section 87A rebate if the prescribed income limit is satisfied. It also held that Finance Act 2025 amendments restricting the rebate are prospective.
The Bangalore ITAT deleted disallowance on transport expenses incurred across India through drivers and local agents. The ruling emphasized that practical realities of the transport industry cannot be ignored while assessing business expenditure.
The Bangalore ITAT upheld exclusion of manufacturing entities from transfer pricing comparables after finding that the assessee’s activities were mainly trading in nature. The Tribunal held that manufacturers and traders differ significantly in functions, assets, and risks.
