The Tribunal refused to condone an 840-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee claimed the Chartered Accountant failed to inform about the assessment order. It held that a taxpayer must remain vigilant about proceedings and cannot shift full responsibility to the counsel.
The Tribunal held that a trust engaged in educational activities for the public cannot be labelled religious without supporting material. It directed the authority to reconsider both registration and 80G approval.
The Tribunal found that the taxpayer had filed Form 68 seeking immunity from penalty but the request was rejected without due process. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the immunity claim in accordance with law.
The Tribunal accepted that the deposits represented funds withdrawn earlier for house construction. Since the explanation was supported by loan records and confirmations, the addition was removed.
ITAT ruled that addition under Section 68 requires a fresh credit in the books during the relevant year. Where loans represent opening balances from earlier years, they cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment proceedings. Since the final assessment was not completed ex-parte, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when they fall within accepted business turnover declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. Once turnover is accepted under Section 44AD, separate additions for such deposits are generally not justified.
ITAT Bangalore held that year-end expense provisions can attract TDS under the IT Act. The matter was restored for limited verification to determine liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
Tribunal held that application software licences with limited duration and no ownership rights are revenue expenditure. It deleted the disallowance and ruled that remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable since AO took plausible view of treating the interest chargeable u/s 28 of the Act being attributable to the business & allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
