ITAT Bangalore Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and that the penalty decision should not solely rely on the quantum appeal decision. The CIT(A) order was set aside due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the addition based on the assessee's explanation supported by an affidavit and in line with CBDT instructions regarding permissible limits of jewellery.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked in the absence of any exempt income. The decision of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and that the penalty decision should not solely rely on the quantum appeal decision. The CIT(A) order was set aside due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the reduction of certain expenses from turnover as it was not raised earlier. However, it allowed the ground challenging the addition under Section 14A, stating that no exempt income was earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and that the penalty decision should not solely rely on the quantum appeal decision. The CIT(A) order was set aside due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and that the penalty decision should not solely rely on the quantum appeal decision. The CIT(A) order was set aside due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and that the penalty decision should not solely rely on the quantum appeal decision. The CIT(A) order was set aside due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 54F does not mandate the new house property to be situated in India, especially considering the amendment to the Act was prospective. Therefore, the exemption is admissible.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for undervaluation of closing stock, holding that the Weighted Average Cost Method is an acceptable and consistently followed method. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and that the penalty decision should not solely rely on the quantum appeal decision. The CIT(A) order was set aside due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid was for the purchase of developed land, not for development work separately. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on deposits made from share capital received for setting up a plant should reduce the capital cost of the project and is not taxable as income from other sources. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The tribunal rejected the exclusion of 'Persistent Systems Ltd.' as a comparable. However, it remanded the case for fresh consideration regarding the comparability of 'Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd.' due to differing financial years.

The Tribunal held that an individual and their HUF are not distinct entities under general law, and the transaction was not a loan between two separate persons. Therefore, Section 269T was not attracted, and no penalty was leviable.

The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit solely based on the absence of a declaration and Form 26AS mismatch was not justified. Credit can be allowed if the deductor has remitted the TDS to the government account, subject to verification.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi. However, for delays occurring after June 1, 2015, the late fees are payable.

The Tribunal decided on several issues. Grounds 1-4 were not pressed and dismissed. Grounds 5-15 concerning transfer pricing analysis and comparable selection were restored to the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for fresh analysis, following directions in an earlier year's appeal. Ground 16, challenging the rejection of book results, was dismissed as academic because the profit remained the same even after recasting the P&L account. Grounds 17-22 challenged the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on royalty payments to GIL. The Tribunal confirmed these additions, citing detailed reasons from an earlier year's appeal. Grounds 23-25 challenged the direction to delete additions on account of attributing profits to a Permanent Establishment (PE) of GIL. This issue was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Morgan Stanley & Co. The remaining grounds were considered consequential. The assessee's appeal IT(IT)A No.1190/Bang/2014 was dismissed. Several other assessee appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue's appeal IT(IT)A No.1295/Bang/2014 was allowed for statistical purposes, and IT(TP)A No.466/Bang/2013 was dismissed. Other Revenue appeals were partly allowed or allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi. However, for delays occurring after June 1, 2015, the late fees are payable.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi. However, for delays occurring after June 1, 2015, the late fees are payable.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi. However, for delays occurring after June 1, 2015, the late fees are payable.

The Tribunal held that the previous ITAT order was not applicable as the assessee had not produced material to show that the AO had accepted the percentage completion method for other projects. Therefore, the assessee's contention for a lower profit was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly compared the facts of the assessee's case with the facts of the cited judgments. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after a detailed factual analysis and comparison.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is to examine the facts of the present case in light of two Karnataka High Court judgments to determine if the interest income is taxable or exempt.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is to examine the facts of the present case in light of two conflicting High Court judgments and decide accordingly.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) needs to examine the facts of the present case in light of two conflicting Karnataka High Court judgments to determine the applicability of each.

The Tribunal held that a judgment can only be followed if the facts are similar. Since the CIT(A) did not compare the facts, the order was set aside. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after comparing the facts.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not compared the facts of the present case with the facts of the cited Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal held that the Goetze (India) Ltd. judgment restricts the Assessing Officer's power to entertain new claims without a revised return, but not the powers of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have decided the claims on merit.

The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act applies to let-out properties that become vacant. Following a previous Tribunal decision with similar facts, the assessee is eligible for vacancy allowance for the entire year.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Fatehraj Singhvi. However, for delays occurring after June 1, 2015, the late fees are payable.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the scope of services rendered by the commission agents was not specified in the agreements and no evidence of actual services being rendered was produced. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of the CIT(A)'s relied judgment depended on whether the bank deposits were out of the assessee's own funds or out of liabilities. Since this crucial factual aspect was not examined, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention whether notices were served on the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides.

The Tribunal held that the sources of the investments were explained by the maturity of two Public Provident Fund (PPF) accounts, one in the assessee's name and another in the name of Smt. Badani Bai, for which the assessee was the nominee. Therefore, no addition was justified.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of the deduction depended on the specific facts of the case, distinguishing between funds deposited out of liability versus own funds. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the facts in light of the cited judgments.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee in the relevant year. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 14,870/-.

The Tribunal held that the loss incurred in an earlier assessment year cannot be allowed as a deduction in the current assessment year, as the loss did not crystallize in the present year. The cited judgments were found not applicable to the facts of the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for tax credit in respect of state taxes paid in the USA. However, the matter was restored to the AO to quantify the allowable foreign tax credit for state taxes.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and that Section 249(4) was not applicable as the assessee was not required to pay advance tax. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had issued notices, the assessee's absence was due to a jurisdictional dispute. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees have now obtained PAN and it was not established that they were liable to pay advance tax, the appeals should be admitted and decided on merit. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.