ITAT Bangalore sends Light Ray Advisors LLP’s dividend exemption claim back to AO for re-examination, noting potential oversight of filed documents.
ITAT Bangalore upheld CIT(A)’s acceptance of additional evidence in local language, dismissing AO’s addition under Section 69A. Read the case details here.
ITAT Bangalore set aside penalty orders under Section 271B due to improper notice delivery to an unrelated email ID and failure to provide adequate response time.
ITAT Bangalore rules in favor of Udaya Ravi Arecanut Co., stating that tax retention without legal backing is unjust. Case remitted for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Bangalore held that the assesse is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54 of the Act if the assesses able to establish the fact that the construction was commenced within the period prescribed of 3 years under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore sets aside ex-parte order against senior citizen, ruling that email-only notices denied a fair hearing. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
Advocate Amardeep Soni & Advocate Harsha Soni Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) A Case Study of ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’ Gemplus India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore [2010] 3 taxmann.com 755 (Bangalore – Trib.) Abstract: The practice of cost allocation and transfer pricing is integral to multinational corporations (MNCs) […]
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Since, the penalty order is not passed within reasonable time, the same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that denial of exemptions under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified as fees are charged by town planning authority to ensure accountability and fund public welfare initiatives, not to generate profit.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act for receiving fixed assets from sister concern on free of cost basis unjustified as no benefit is derived from the same. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
