ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2017

The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to establish business expediency for incurred expenses. The assessee failed to justify the consultancy expenses, and thus the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity, following its own previous decisions. It also remanded the issue of inclusion of two comparables for fresh adjudication and directed consideration of risk adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to establish business expediency for incurred expenses. The assessee failed to justify the consultancy expenses, and thus the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance was upheld.

The tribunal found that the issue of freight charges was not properly examined and set it aside to the AO for fresh consideration. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, and it did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to establish business expediency for incurred expenses. The assessee failed to justify the consultancy expenses, and thus the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that while the e-stamping income may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it's not a core or ancillary business activity, the expenditure incurred to earn this income must be considered. Therefore, only the net income, not the gross commission, should be added to the total income.

The Tribunal held that Section 54 allows deduction even if the investment in the new house is made prior to the sale of the old house, and the source of funds (loan vs. capital gain) is not the determining factor. The total investment exceeding the capital gain implies the capital gain is considered invested.

The Tribunal held that the entire payment made by the assessee for the new residential property, including payments to a confirming party and the developer, should be considered for the Section 54F deduction. The restriction by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds deposited in banks by co-operative societies, which are not required for immediate lending to members and do not represent liabilities to members, is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were followed.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(Appeals) had specified the shortcomings in the bills furnished. Given the assessee's claim of having complete bills and the interest of justice, the matter was set aside for proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by accepting fresh evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it, which violates Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal held that if a property is vacant for a period, the actual rent received is to be taxed, and rent for the vacancy period cannot be subjected to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The CIT(A) held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for Section 54F, including depositing the unutilised portion in a capital gains account and offering it to tax in the subsequent year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the facts and allow the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's consistently followed and accepted inventory valuation method. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO as the assessee followed the cash basis of accounting. However, it directed the AO to allow TDS credit as per Rule 37BA(3)(ii). The issue regarding NRE account interest was restored to the CIT(A) for decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 54 exemption considers both the value of land and the cost of construction for a new house property. The AO's restriction of deduction to only the land value was deemed improper. The Tribunal allowed the full exemption claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not considering the cost of construction along with the cost of land. When both costs were considered, there was no capital gain on the sale of the property.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) are not valid. Following the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Alstom T & D India Ltd., the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was in line with Section 14A and Rule 8D. The disallowance was not more than the actual administrative expenses debited by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal noted that the AO excluded export proceeds received after six months. While a previous Tribunal order allowed inclusion if received within the extended RBI period, the current case lacked clarity on the export date. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have adjudicated the issues on merits rather than quashing the assessment. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and was passed without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal noted that the individuals had not disputed the collection of cash or their authorization by villagers for infrastructure development.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding the treatment of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for computing deduction under Section 10A. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no interference was warranted.

The Tribunal held that since registration under Section 12AA has now been granted and upheld by the High Court, the exemption under Section 11 needs to be re-examined. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that all three comparable companies selected by the TPO were functionally different from the assessee and therefore excluded them. The matter was restored to the AO/TPO to re-examine the issue with fresh comparables.

The Tribunal held that Section 234D is applicable to the assessment year in question due to retrospective insertion of Explanation 2. It also upheld the original assessment officer's calculation of interest as being in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the turnover filter is a valid criterion for excluding comparables, agreeing with the CIT(Appeals) on this point. However, it disagreed with the exclusion of Softsol India Ltd. based on the RPT filter and directed its inclusion. The Tribunal also restored the issue of Section 10A deduction to the Assessing Officer to recompute it following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The ITAT found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had rightly adjudicated the issues. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide a specific ground raised by the assessee regarding the treatment of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for computing deduction under Section 10A. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this issue.

The Tribunal found that the AO and DRP had not properly adjudicated the assessee's objections regarding the allocation of administrative expenses. Therefore, this issue was set aside for readjudication. Other issues raised by both the assessee and revenue were deemed consequential and were also set aside for fresh consideration by the TPO.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision on the 10A deduction, finding it consistent with High Court precedent. However, for transfer pricing issues concerning turnover and RPT filters, and risk adjustment, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, which were also upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no interference was warranted.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee does not earn any exempt income during the relevant financial year, then Section 14A cannot be invoked for disallowance. The CIT(Appeals)'s order deleting the disallowance was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred in travel and telecommunication in foreign currency should be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover when computing the deduction under Section 10A. This decision was based on the principle of uniformity in the formula to avoid anomalies.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals) order, which had rightly adjudicated the issues in detail. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that for the period prior to June 1, 2013, buy-back of shares is not to be treated as dividend under Section 2(22)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is taxable as capital gains. However, any payment exceeding the fair market value of the shares could be considered a colourable device to transfer profits and fall under Section 2(22)(e).