ITAT Bangalore Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular and the admitted low tax effect. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below the specified limit. The Revenue's representative conceded that the tax effect was below the limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of the entire gold jewellery found. Reliance on CBDT circulars and unsubstantiated claims of ancestral jewellery were not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank as defined under Section 80P(4) of the IT Act. Therefore, it is eligible for the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications solely on the ground of no charitable activities being conducted, especially when the trust was recently formed. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant registration under Section 12A and consequently recognition under Section 80G.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular which sets monetary limits for appeals, held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. The Revenue's representative admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of foreign currency and telecommunication charges from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court. The issue of setting off brought forward depreciation and losses for Section 10A deduction was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO must record objective satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Since this condition was not met, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was set aside.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that interest earned on fixed deposits from surplus funds is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The judgment of the Supreme Court in Totgar's case was distinguished.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to 'cooperative banks' as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, not to 'credit cooperative societies'. Therefore, the assessee, being a credit cooperative society, is eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications solely on the ground of no charitable activities being conducted, especially when the trust was recently formed. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant registration under Section 12A and consequently recognition under Section 80G.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal, noting a previous order that held the firm was not in existence. The issue of the firm's existence was sent back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision based on prior Tribunal orders and in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals and no exceptional circumstances like audit objections or foreign assets were present. Therefore, the circular was applicable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue's representative also admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals and no exceptions mentioned in the circular were applicable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the circular.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below the threshold stipulated in the circular. As no other exceptions applied, the circular was deemed applicable to the case.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals as per Circular No. 21/2015. The appeal did not involve constitutional validity or issues arising from Revenue audit objections.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular and the low tax effect. The Revenue's representative also admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals and that no exceptions mentioned in the circular were applicable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 14A, following a previous order. However, it found that the Assessing Officer made a double disallowance of interest expenditure and that the CIT(A) correctly provided relief to the assessee. The appeal arising from the Section 154 order was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a credit co-operative society and not a co-operative bank as defined under Section 80P(4). Following the jurisdictional High Court's consistent view, the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs and the appeal did not involve constitutional validity or revenue audit objections. Therefore, the circular was applicable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative also admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular revising monetary limits for appeals. The Departmental Representative also admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular setting monetary limits for appeals. The Learned Departmental Representative also admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below the prescribed limit and no exceptions mentioned in the circular were applicable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue's representative admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the conversion of ancestral agricultural land into residential sites does not change its character from a capital asset to stock-in-trade. The AO's view was not the only possible view, and the CIT's revision was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment of prior period expenses in book profit computation under Section 115JB is permissible only if such expenditure was required to be debited to the Profit & Loss Account as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act and was disclosed in the notes to accounts. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptional circumstances like constitutional validity or audit objections were present. Therefore, the circular was applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 14A, following a previous order. However, it found that the Assessing Officer made a double disallowance of interest expenditure and that the CIT(A) correctly provided relief to the assessee. The appeal arising from the Section 154 order was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular was squarely applicable, and no exceptions were met.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 14A, following a previous order. However, it found that the Assessing Officer made a double disallowance of interest expenditure and that the CIT(A) correctly provided relief to the assessee. The appeal arising from the Section 154 order was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that income of charitable trusts should be computed on commercial principles and that excess application of income in one year can be adjusted against income of future years. The denial of carry forward was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the conversion of ancestral agricultural land into residential sites does not change its character from a capital asset to stock-in-trade. The AO's view was not the only possible view, and the CIT's revision was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was remanded back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds regarding the reopening of assessment were dismissed as the assessee never sought reasons for reopening. However, on merits, the matter of the addition was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration due to insufficient verification of the assessee's evidence regarding the source of funds.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of reimbursement expenses to the AO for further verification. For commission expenses, the Tribunal noted that circulars in force at the time of payment allowed such payments without TDS, and for software expenses and interest on borrowed funds for capital assets, the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in revising the AO's order, as the AO had already considered the bank account details and estimated the income. The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation implicitly accounted for potential disallowances, and the CIT was merely substituting his opinion for that of the AO.

The Tribunal noted that while brought forward losses should be set off before deduction, unabsorbed depreciation should be set off before deduction as per Supreme Court ruling. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from deposits with banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The order of the lower authorities denying the deduction was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative banks and not to credit co-operative societies. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative banks, not credit co-operative societies. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) is applicable only to cooperative banks and not to credit cooperative societies. Therefore, the assessee, being a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, is entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) is applicable only to co-operative banks, not to credit co-operative societies. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was accepted by the AO based on the father's affidavit. While not fully accepting the assessee's claim, the Tribunal directed that only the peak credit, not the cumulative deposits, should be brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative banks and not to co-operative societies. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). The addition for interest on fixed deposits was also deleted.