ITAT Bangalore held that disallowing outstanding sub-contract expenses payable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit without specific reasoning and without pointing out defects in books of accounts is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted.
The issue was whether higher depreciation on goods carriage vehicles could be disallowed during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable claims need scrutiny and cannot be adjusted under section 143(1).
The ITAT held that depreciation cannot be disallowed when ownership, usage, and actual cost of assets are undisputed. Mere suspicion about the source of funds is insufficient to deny statutory depreciation.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned on deposits from cooperative banks by credit societies is attributable to their business of lending and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned by cooperative societies from cooperative bank deposits is attributable to their business of providing credit and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT Bangalore restored ₹4.19 crore claimed as revenue loss to CIT(A) for fresh examination. The Tribunal emphasized that proper assessment under Sections 37(1) and 28 is essential before allowing write-offs.
ITAT Bangalore condoned a 247-day delay in filing appeals caused by email miscommunication and change of accountants. The Tribunal restored Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deductions for cooperative society interest income.
The CIT(Exemption) canceled 80G approval as the trust did not submit audit reports, expenditure proof, and bank statements. The tribunal remitted the case for fresh consideration with opportunity to comply.
ITAT Bangalore allowed deduction of ₹55.4 crore ESOP expenses under section 37, holding it as employee compensation cost. ESOP costs may be deductible even if cross-charged from parent company.
ITAT allowed exemption under Section 11, holding that Revenue cannot deny benefits due to clerical omission of registration details. Key takeaway: procedural mistakes should not override substantive law.
