The assessee neither filed returns nor responded to statutory notices, yet additions were deleted on appeal. ITAT held that absence of verification of source and compliance makes such deletion unsustainable.
The assessment proceeded on a fundamentally incorrect factual premise regarding the date of deposit. ITAT ruled that such an error warrants remand for fresh examination of cash source and sales genuineness.
The association’s surplus was not distributable to members and activities were non-profit. The ITAT ruled that these factors support charitable character and restored the case for re-evaluation.
Demonetisation-era jewellery sales were questioned as invoices mentioned buyers only as cash. The ITAT remanded the matter to verify buyer identity, stock linkage, and genuineness before sustaining any addition.
The revision questioned deduction on interest income allowed under section 80P. The Tribunal held that where the AO adopts a legally plausible view after enquiry, section 263 cannot be invoked.
The Tribunal ruled that where more than three years have elapsed, sanction must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner. Approval by the Principal Commissioner renders the reassessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that advances received under a joint development agreement are not taxable as business income when land remains a capital asset and no transfer under section 2(47) has occurred.
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.
