The dispute involved taxing a foreign investment as unexplained income. The Tribunal clarified that Section 69 applies only where investments are not recorded in books or the source remains unexplained.
ITAT Bangalore rules that Section 80P deductions cannot be claimed if the return is filed after the due date. The decision reinforces compliance with Section 80AC(ii) and aligns with Madras HC precedent.
ITAT Bangalore directs reassessment with full hearing for an agriculturist after procedural lapses in notices and missed hearings. The ruling emphasizes the importance of fair opportunity under Sections 148 and 144B.
The Tribunal ruled that increasing assessed income without issuing a notice under section 251 violates natural justice. The case was remanded as ex-parte enhancement beyond the original addition was found legally unsustainable.
Tribunal held that debatable issues fall outside scope of summary adjustments under section 143(1). Denial of exemption based on procedural lapses was therefore unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore invalidated a reassessment where the assessee was not provided the recorded reasons, emphasizing that reopening notices must be supported by clear, communicated reasons before filing returns.
The Tribunal ruled that depreciation for subsequent years is consequential to the first-year determination of actual cost. Appeals were restored as the base year issue remained undecided.
The Tribunal ruled that routine replacement of plant and machinery parts does not create a new asset or enduring benefit. Such expenses were held to be revenue in nature and fully deductible.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from bank deposits is attributable to its core business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), reversing the denial by lower authorities.
The Tribunal ruled that section 271AAB applies only to undisclosed income found in search, not to routine disallowances from recorded books.
