In the case of Rammohan Kordale vs ACIT, ITAT Bangalore held that money transferred between assessee’s joint bank accounts cannot be classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act.
Explore the verdict of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hemavathi Ramesh Vs ITO, where cash deposits from earlier deposits were deemed taxable. Delve into the legal nuances and implications of the judgement.
An in-depth analysis of case between Blue Reservoir Business Services LLP and DCIT where ITAT Bangalore directed re-adjudication because assessee was not well-versed with ITBA
The ITAT Bangalore has allowed the appeal of Dunichand Khitri Raja against the disallowance of a claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT held that the delay in filing Form 10CCB, due to technical glitches beyond the assessee’s control, should not bar the claim of deduction.
The ITAT Bangalore has directed the re-adjudication of the case of Satish Panduranga against the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the ground of non-reply to a notice issued during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18.
ITAT Bangalore deleted the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Dhanasingh Nagamuthu vs. ITO. The tribunal found that the assessing officer had not given the assessee a proper opportunity to respond and establish reasons for non-compliance, as required under Section 274(1) of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore has directed the re-adjudication of the case between Centre for e-Governance and DCIT. The ITAT found that the assessing officer had disallowed the claim of accumulation of 85% of income under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act due to the lack of a specific purpose mentioned in Form 10.
ITAT Bangalore has ruled in Bandenawaz Mulla vs. ACIT that no audit can be conducted under section 44AB of Income Tax Act when assessee has not maintained books of account.
ITAT Bangalore held that the loss arising in eligible SEZ-STPI undertakings are not required to be adjusted against the profits arising from other SEZ-STPI undertakings and the said loss can be adjusted against profits arising from non-SEZ-non-STPI units.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal remanded the matter to AO to reconsider disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) pertaining to whether the assessee has made TDS under section 192 with respect the salary paid to the seconded employees in its entirety.
