ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee HUF could not demonstrate how it was an aggrieved person against an assessment order passed in the hands of an individual. Therefore, no interference was called for.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee HUF could not demonstrate how it was an aggrieved person against an assessment order passed in the hands of an individual. Therefore, no interference was called for.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that expenses excluded from export turnover for Section 10A deduction should also be excluded from total turnover. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s finding.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground of market risk adjustment, directing the TPO to examine the same. However, the contention regarding the provision for doubtful debts being an operating expense was rejected.

The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover for calculating deduction under Section 10B, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables for both software development and ITES segments. It also directed that working capital adjustment should be calculated on an actual basis without any cap.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter for fresh decision. The assessee is allowed to file a condonation application with reasons and evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that expenses excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations and the absence of deliberate delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had upheld the AO's action based on the admission of a key person regarding fraudulent billing and accommodation entries.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the DVO's report and examine whether the assessees had accounted for the extra investment declared, providing an opportunity for both sides to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations and the absence of deliberate delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that adjournment requests were made and that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even if the assessee was absent. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a fair hearing, including furnishing the statement relied upon by the AO and allowing for cross-examination, as per the directions of the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to cross-examine the deponent and to furnish the statement on which the assessment was based.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a fair hearing, including furnishing the statement relied upon by the AO and allowing for cross-examination, as per the directions of the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. 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 found that the applicability of the deduction depended on the specific facts of the case, distinguishing between deposits made from liabilities versus own funds. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on these facts and relevant High Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's (AO) disallowance was based on the assessee's activities violating its formation act and catering to distinct categories of members, including 'nominal members' who were essentially depositors. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's activities, particularly with nominal members, resembled finance business rather than a cooperative society.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the DVO's report and examine whether the assessees had accounted for the extra investment declared, providing an opportunity for both sides to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the DVO's report and examine whether the assessees had accounted for the extra investment declared, providing an opportunity for both sides to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the DVO's report and examine whether the assessees had accounted for the extra investment declared, providing an opportunity for both sides to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the DVO's report and examine whether the assessees had accounted for the extra investment declared, providing an opportunity for both sides to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations and the absence of deliberate delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on the land component of the property. It relied on Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents which held that land is not entitled to depreciation along with the building.

The Tribunal decided the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear and rectify the defects. Consequently, the appeal was not admitted.

The Tribunal held that the investment in the residential property, even if routed through the wife's account, is considered the assessee's investment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had proved the trail of investment from the sale proceeds into the house property.

The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after making proper enquiries and considering all evidences. The assessee was given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after making proper enquiries and considering all evidences. The assessee was given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after making proper enquiries and considering all evidences. The assessee was given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after making proper enquiries and considering all evidences. The assessee was given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after making proper enquiries and considering all evidences. The assessee was given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a document (certificate of CA) attempting to reconcile cash withdrawals and deposits, which was available before the lower authorities. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining this document.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the assessee had not been afforded sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee to present all details and evidence.

The Tribunal restored the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh decision, allowing the assessee to produce all required evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO completed the assessment without proper inquiries due to the late filing of the return by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. 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 conflicting judgments from the Karnataka High Court based on differing facts regarding whether the deposited amount was the society's own money or a liability. As the facts of the present case were not clear on this crucial aspect, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when there is an actual receipt of income not includible in total income. Since the assessee earned no exempt income in the relevant assessment years, no disallowance under Section 14A could be made.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal restored the bad debt claim to the AO for fresh examination, stating it should be allowed if the assessee proves it was written off. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to wages and interest-free loans, citing consistency and the availability of sufficient funds.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that accepting additional evidence without a remand report from the AO contravened Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without confronting the AO, remanding that issue back for fresh adjudication. For the additional depreciation claim, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the acquisition of new plant and machinery, thus not fulfilling the conditions for the claim.