ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal held that the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80-IB(8A) are satisfied, including those related to infrastructure ownership and technology transfer, even for contract research. The AO cannot re-examine violations of Rule 18DA(8A) if the prescribed authority has granted approval.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by admitting fresh evidence and granting relief without giving the Assessing Officer an adequate opportunity to examine and rebut the evidence as required by Rule 46A(3).

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Canfin Homes Ltd. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the IT Rules by not confronting the additional evidence to the AO. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to his file for readjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the main grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, having only dealt with an additional ground. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of all grounds.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the assessee's contentions regarding the adjustment of interest expenditure against interest income from debtors. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's reply and the applicability of Section 273B (reasonable cause). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the lack of proper opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether notice of hearing was served on the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for readjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's reply and the applicability of Section 273B (reasonable cause). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's reply and the applicability of Section 273B (reasonable cause). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 Lakhs, excluding interest. The AO's notional tax effect calculation was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal found that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not apply comparability filters uniformly to all comparable companies, both those selected by the assessee and those selected by the TPO. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the TPO for re-examination.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is admissible for computing the income of a charitable trust for the purpose of Section 11. The claim for depreciation does not amount to a double deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal on grounds related to the RPT filter and exclusion of companies with abnormal profits. However, it dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of Infosys Technologies Ltd. The cross-objections by the assessee were partly allowed, remanding the issue of functional comparability for certain companies to the TPO.

The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for deduction of interest income under Section 80P depends on whether the deposits were made from the society's own funds or from liabilities. Since the facts regarding the source of funds were not clear, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the applicability of Section 80P depends on whether the deposits were made from the society's own funds or from liabilities to members. Since the specific facts of the present case were not clear, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of Section 80P depends on whether the deposits were made from the society's own funds or from liabilities. Since the facts were not clear, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of justice to allow the assessee to raise additional grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for deduction of interest income under Section 80P depends on whether the deposits were made from the society's own funds or from liabilities. Since the facts regarding the source of funds were not clear, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of Section 80P depends on whether the deposits were made from the society's own funds or from liabilities. Since the facts were not clear, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for deduction depends on whether the bank deposits were made from the society's own funds or from liabilities. Since the facts were not clear, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not acquire any interest in the property from the date of the initial agreement of sale as full consideration was not paid and possession was not transferred. Therefore, the holding period should be reckoned from the date of the sale deed registration, making the gains short-term capital gains.

The tribunal held that for interest income to be set off against business expenditure, there must be a demonstrable nexus and evidence that fixed deposits were made from borrowed funds for business purposes. Regarding the percentage of completion method, interest should be consistently treated as a cost component in both total estimated cost and cost incurred to avoid a distorted picture.

The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal to be neither plausible nor bonafide. The appellant did not adequately explain the substantial delay, especially the period after receiving the consequential order.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly appreciate the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to re-examine the claim.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing the admission of additional evidence and consideration of whether the addition under Section 68 included an opening balance. The stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had appeared on earlier dates but was not heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, following a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' from a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied a fair hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied a fair hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied a fair hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied a fair hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal followed a previous order which, in turn, followed a Karnataka High Court judgment. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision with directions to provide a fair opportunity of hearing and furnish relevant details.

The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the DRP for fresh adjudication. The DRP was directed to decide the additional grounds along with the main grounds in a speaking and reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 11(1)(a) should be computed on gross receipts, not net receipts. The CIT(A) was not justified in differing from previous binding decisions of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity as the Revenue could not demonstrate any difference in facts or a stay on the binding High Court judgments. The deduction under Section 80P was allowed.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the validity of reopening under Section 148. Grounds related to the merits of the case were rejected as they were not raised before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash loans to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting additional evidence, citing the assessee's ignorance. The addition of interest income was upheld as no arguments were advanced by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to file the appeal electronically within a specified timeframe.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied a fair hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that if an addition is agreed to by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the assessee cannot be aggrieved by such addition. Therefore, an appeal against such an agreed addition is incompetent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 156 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had withdrawn its appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law because the AO should have invoked Section 153C, given that the seized material belonged to the assessee and a search had been conducted in another person's premises. The CIT(A)'s order cancelling the assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that if quantum additions are deleted, there is no basis for penalty for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained and is deleted.