CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
AO noted that the assessee was unable to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, AO applied section 68 and added into total income and applied tax rate as per section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly assessed income was determined at Rs.75,49,764.
ITAT Bangalore held that the addition of provision of bad and doubtful debts as per P&L account to determine the book profits u/s. 115JB of the act is not warranted as actual write off would not be hit by clause (i) of explanation to section 115JB.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-payment of an amount equal to the amount of advance tax unjustified as assessee has explained good and sufficient reason for not paying the amount.
ITAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act on account of underreporting of income not justified as failing to furnish income tax return was bona fide.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest/ dividend from co-operative society is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. However, if payer bank is co-operative bank then deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is not available.
ITAT Bangalore directed AO that claim in respect of interest on fixed deposits if any is not allowed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act has to be considered in accordance with law by allowing the expenditure u/s. 57 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that as per provisions of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, an agriculturist is not required to maintain books of accounts. Further, revenue has failed to establish anything contrary, accordingly, addition made on this count deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that both AO and First Appellate Authority failed to conduct examination of cash deposit during demonetisation period in the light of CBDT instructions and hence matter remanded to that extent.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of 288 days committed as assessment order mailed to email ID of erstwhile employee and hence delay in filing of an appeal condoned. Matter remanded back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
