Loading ITAT cases…
912 tribunal orders from the Bangalore bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 912 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that Asian Business Exhibition & Conferences Ltd. is not a good comparable for the assessee's marketing support services, following its own prior decisions. The issue regarding ICC International Agencies Ltd. was restored to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted a previous order where a similar Souharda Credit Co-operative Society's claim was questioned due to lack of registration under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-examination and investigation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions related to tipper expenses and sundry creditors, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to controvert the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the facts in light of specific High Court and Supreme Court judgments concerning deposits made from own funds versus liabilities.
The Tribunal held that the AO is bound by the DRP's directions and must pass the final assessment order in conformity with them. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to verify if the deductee had filed its return and paid tax on the interest amount. If confirmed, no disallowance would be warranted, following the Delhi High Court's ruling on the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal noted a previous order where a similar Souharda Credit Co-operative Society's claim was questioned due to lack of registration under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-examination and investigation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions for tipper expenses and sundry creditors, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to controvert the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions related to tipper expenses and sundry creditors, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to controvert the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty was not justified. For project development cost, the claim was considered plausible and similar to the ratio in Reliance Petro Products. For depreciation, the AO's non-application of mind and the assessee's plausible claim for moulds and dyes used in plastic filters were noted.
The Tribunal held that the 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be calculated on gross receipts, not net surplus, following previous tribunal orders. It also upheld the carry forward of excess expenditure for future set-off, again relying on prior judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that a license from the RBI is imperative for a co-operative bank. Since the assessee could obtain a certificate from the RBI clarifying its business nature, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to examine the assessee's claim for Section 10A deduction. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the claim afresh, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the applicability of judgments cited by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.
The Tribunal found that the DRP should have provided more opportunities for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the DRP for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal held that the 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be calculated on gross receipts, not net surplus, following previous tribunal orders. It also upheld the carry forward of excess expenditure for future set-off, again relying on prior judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT instructions for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate details regarding the quantity of crops sold, sale prices, and expenses incurred. The reliance on the Horticulture Department's report, which was based on a scientific analysis, was deemed reasonable by the authorities below.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the assessee's claim regarding the loans and investment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that three companies (Infosys Ltd., Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., and Persistent Systems Ltd.) were not comparable based on previous ITAT rulings. It also excluded Genesys International Corporation Ltd. as it was engaged in GIS-based services, not pure software development.
The Tribunal found valid reasons for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits after condoning the delay and non-appearance.
The Tribunal found merit in the submissions of the assessee's authorized representative. It noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) without a proper examination and comparison of the facts of the present case with that precedent. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction made in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), where the decision favoured the assessee because the deposited funds were out of the assessee's own funds, unlike in the Totagars case where the funds were out of liability. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the issue should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to examine and compare the facts of the present case with those in the Totagars and Tumkur Merchants cases. If the facts align with Totagars, the issue should be decided against the assessee; if they align with Tumkur Merchants, it should be decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) is to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to both parties. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The Tribunal found merit in the submissions of the assessee's authorized representative. It noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) without a proper examination and comparison of the facts of the present case with that precedent. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction made in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), where the decision favoured the assessee because the deposited funds were out of the assessee's own funds, unlike in the Totagars case where the funds were out of liability. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the issue should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to examine and compare the facts of the present case with those in the Totagars and Tumkur Merchants cases. If the facts align with Totagars, the issue should be decided against the assessee; if they align with Tumkur Merchants, it should be decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) is to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to both parties. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The Tribunal decided to remand certain comparable companies for fresh consideration by the TPO regarding employee costs and segmental details. For the marketing support segment, one comparable company was rightly excluded by the DRP as it was engaged in trading activities dissimilar to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, following the Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimated GP as the assessee did not produce books of account or comparable cases. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and addition under Section 69C were also confirmed due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimated GP as the assessee did not produce books of account or comparable cases. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and addition under Section 69C were also confirmed due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimated GP as the assessee did not produce books of account or comparable cases. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and addition under Section 69C were also confirmed due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimated GP as the assessee did not produce books of account or comparable cases. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and addition under Section 69C were also confirmed due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimated GP as the assessee did not produce books of account or comparable cases. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and addition under Section 69C were also confirmed due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the submissions of the assessee's authorized representative. It noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) without a proper examination and comparison of the facts of the present case with that precedent. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction made in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. ITO (supra), where the decision favoured the assessee because the deposited funds were out of the assessee's own funds, unlike in the Totagars case where the funds were out of liability. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the issue should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to examine and compare the facts of the present case with those in the Totagars and Tumkur Merchants cases. If the facts align with Totagars, the issue should be decided against the assessee; if they align with Tumkur Merchants, it should be decided in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) is to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to both parties. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on capitalized software expenses due to non-deduction of TDS under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable. It also directed the deletion of the addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables based on previous coordinate bench decisions. It also allowed the working capital adjustment to be made on an actual basis, provided the assessee had submitted the necessary workings to the lower authorities.