ITAT Bangalore held that RBI’s classification of compulsorily convertible debentures as equity for FDI purposes cannot determine their treatment under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled that interest on CCDs before conversion remains allowable.
ITAT Bangalore held that TDS credit cannot be denied merely because it was omitted in the original income tax return. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify Form 26AS and allow the credit if the corresponding income has been offered to tax.
ITAT Bangalore held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated bank after it had ceased to exist is void ab initio. The Tribunal ruled that once the Assessing Officer was informed of the amalgamation, the defect could not be cured under Section 292B.
The Tribunal ruled that filing a return in response to Section 148 does not cure the failure to file the original return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). Consequently, the claim for deduction under Section 80P was rightly rejected.
ITAT Bangalore held that Section 154 cannot be invoked to make a fresh disallowance of an asset write-off claim that was never examined in the original assessment. The Tribunal ruled that such an issue is not a mistake apparent from the record and falls outside the scope of rectification.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Income-tax Act does not prohibit a charitable trust from filing a second application for registration under Section 12AB after an earlier rejection.
ITAT ruled that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was unsustainable as it exceeded the limitation period prescribed by the Income-tax Act. The decision highlights that statutory timelines cannot be ignored without supporting evidence from the Revenue.
ITAT Bangalore deleted the penalty under Section 270A after holding that the assessee’s incorrect claim arose from a bona fide misunderstanding of a newly introduced provision under Section 71(3A).
ITAT Bangalore held that reassessment cannot survive where the Assessing Officer makes no addition on the very issue for which the assessment was reopened. The Tribunal deleted the Section 54 disallowance, holding that additions on unrelated issues are unsustainable once the original reopening ground fails.
ITAT Bangalore held that a ₹5 lakh investment could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69 where documentary evidence showed it was made through a cheque issued by the tenant under a lease arrangement.
