ITAT Bangalore Judgments — November 2017

The Tribunal held that the accumulation permitted under Section 11(1)(a) is to be computed on gross receipts, not net receipts. This decision was based on a precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The Tribunal held that a gift transaction cannot be deemed non-genuine solely because it was made in cash. The identity and creditworthiness of the donor (husband) were not in doubt as he was assessed by the same AO and had substantial capital. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT order and a Karnataka High Court judgment, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. This was based on the principle that the assessee should be provided with the statement details and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the accumulation permitted under Section 11(1)(a) is to be computed on gross receipts, not net receipts. This decision was based on a precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The Tribunal held that the interest rate of 15% for unsecured loans is not excessive compared to 12% for secured loans, considering the higher risk involved in unsecured lending.

The Tribunal followed a previous order and a Karnataka High Court judgment, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. This was based on the principle that the assessee should be provided with the statement details and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide this technical aspect first. The merits of the case would be decided thereafter.

The Tribunal granted partial relief to the assessee, allowing Rs. 2.15 lacs representing the assessee's share in property sale proceeds. No other relief was granted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2009-10, no further addition was justified as the declared income exceeded 5% of the turnover under Section 44AF. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the additions under Section 69C were deleted as the source of unexplained purchases was explained by the assessee's own unaccounted sales and other receipts.

The tribunal held that the sale of shade trees is a capital asset giving rise to capital gains, following a High Court judgment. However, it directed the AO to recompute the capital gains by adopting 15% of the sale value as the cost on 01.04.1981 and allow indexation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not clearly specify the nature of the default, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also deemed invalid.

The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional High Court had restored similar matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Citizen Co-operative Society Limited. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that a gift from a father to his daughter, especially when made through an account payee cheque, cannot be doubted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover for Section 10A deduction must also be excluded from total turnover.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue in the assessee's own case for the preceding year held the software purchase as royalty but disallowed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for depreciation claims. The Revenue did not dispute this.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. It deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had not earned any exempted income. The provision for inventory was allowed as it was in line with jurisdictional High Court decisions. The issue of service tax receivable was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, which was not decided against the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 8,99,900 received on account of the sale of the property is not taxable in the hands of the appellant. The Tribunal perused the Sale Deed and noted that the property was originally owned by Mr. Venkataramanappa, then by his son Chikkaramaiah, and subsequently fell to the share of late Nanjunda Reddy through a partition deed. Upon Nanjunda Reddy's death, his six sons became owners, and they jointly sold the property. The appellant is the son of Venkatesh, one of the six sons. While the appellant's name appeared as a seller (serial No. 5) in the sale deed, there was no evidence to show he was the absolute owner. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that he was made a party as a confirming party. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs. Ch.Atchaiah (218 ITR 239), the Tribunal emphasized that the right amount should be taxed in the right hands. Therefore, the amount could not be taxed in the hands of the appellant. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If found not time-barred, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit; otherwise, nothing remains to be decided.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to consider the crucial fact that the land conversion, a prerequisite for the JDA's enforceability, occurred after the assessment year. Therefore, no transfer of capital asset could be considered to have taken place in AY 2007-08.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for AY 2009-10 was decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the services did not constitute FTS as technical knowledge was not made available. However, due to new documents filed by the assessee and the assessee's subsequent acceptance of similar receipts as FTS for AY 2012-13, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal followed previous decisions to exclude two comparables (HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. and Killick Agencies & Mktg. Ltd.) as functionally different. The issue regarding Hindustan Hosing Co. Ltd. was remanded for fresh examination of its related party transaction percentage.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition could be made to the income already assessed. The assessment under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of seized material for completed assessments.

The Tribunal held that the affidavits were on record before the AO and were considered by the CIT(A). The AO's failure to consider these affidavits and the subsequent order sheet discrepancies did not warrant interference with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was deemed bad in law and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue of limitation first. If the penalty orders are found to be time-barred, nothing further needs to be decided. Otherwise, the CIT(A) should decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the receipt of services from its AE before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was not remanded for de novo examination, as it would amount to giving the assessee a second innings to patch up its case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in relying on previous orders where the capital vs. revenue nature of franchisee fees was not an issue. The Tribunal held that the allowability of depreciation depends on this classification and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee-society is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is not a cooperative bank exclusively carrying on banking business and does not possess an RBI license. The CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in relying on previous orders where the capital vs. revenue nature of franchisee fees was not an issue. The Tribunal held that the allowability of depreciation depends on this classification and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in relying on previous orders where the capital vs. revenue nature of franchisee fees was not an issue. The Tribunal held that the allowability of depreciation depends on this classification and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that reasons for reassessment were indeed supplied and that the CIT(A)'s reliance on certain case laws was misplaced. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of Rs. 92,00,000/- as the identity of Amjad Pasha and the genuineness of the transaction were not established.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions without confronting the statement of the third party to the assessee and without allowing cross-examination. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in light of the Delhi High Court's judgment in Chryscapital Investment Advisors. The issue regarding Section 10A deduction was decided in favour of the assessee, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had set aside similar appeals for other assessment years in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal also set aside the current appeal and remanded it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amount agreed to during the survey was for investment in a property, while the AO's addition was for construction material purchases. These were distinct and not overlapping. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition based on an affidavit filed much later without involving the AO.

The Tribunal found that reasons for reassessment were indeed supplied and that the CIT(A)'s reliance on certain case laws was misplaced. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of Rs. 92,00,000/- as the identity of Amjad Pasha and the genuineness of the transaction were not established.

The Tribunal held that the 'onsite filter' should be applied to all comparables, not just one, and restored the entire transfer pricing matter to the DRP for fresh consideration. Regarding the Section 10A deduction, the Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., allowing the exclusion of foreign currency expenditure from both export and total turnover.

The Tribunal found that reasons for reassessment were indeed supplied and that the CIT(A)'s reliance on certain case laws was misplaced. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of Rs. 92,00,000/- as the identity of Amjad Pasha and the genuineness of the transaction were not established.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by restoring the matter to the AO instead of adjudicating it. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the 'onsite filter' should be applied to all comparables, not just one, and restored the entire transfer pricing matter to the DRP for fresh consideration. Regarding the Section 10A deduction, the Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Tata Elxsi Ltd., allowing the exclusion of foreign currency expenditure from both export and total turnover.