ITAT Bangalore allows Section 54F capital gains exemption for an assessee, validating oral Hiba (gift) under Mohammedan Law and overturning previous denials.
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act are application only when there is transfer of any asset to the partners account from the firm. Accordingly, section 45(4) cannot be invoked in case of incremental capital brought in by the new partner.
Bangalore ITAT deletes tax additions based on third-party seized documents and retracted statements in DCIT vs. Gopal Krishnanatsa Katigar. Ruling highlights necessity of direct evidence, upholding principles of natural justice and cross-examination rights.
Bangalore ITAT mandates 80G approval for Academy of General Education, clarifying CIT(E)’s scope is limited to verifying genuine activities and statutory compliance, not income utilization or fee nature.
ITAT Bangalore overturns CIT (Exemptions)’s rejection, granting City Hospital Charitable Trust 80G approval. The tribunal clarified the scope of inquiry for 80G approval, emphasizing genuineness over fund application at this stage.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the audit report filed in form 10B to be available with the Assessing Officer before the assessment proceedings take place, the requirement of Law is satisfied. Thus, exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed.
ITAT Bangalore rules that 80G approval hinges on genuine charitable activities, not solely on fee surpluses or accumulated funds. The ruling clarifies the scope of CIT(E)’s inquiry for 80G applications.
ITAT Bangalore condoned a 139-day delay in an appeal by Gautham Kempanna, remanding the case for fresh assessment despite the assessee’s non-response to notices, conditional on a Rs. 20,000 payment to the PM’s Relief Fund.
ITAT Bangalore rules against extrapolating unaccounted sales without concrete evidence in DCIT vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services. Admissions alone are insufficient for additions.
ITAT Bangalore dismisses Prem Prakash Gupta’s appeal for 375-day delay. Emotional distress cited without evidence deemed insufficient for condonation. Case highlights ‘explanation’ vs ‘excuse’.
