ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal decided to exclude Accentia Technologies Limited and Fortune Infotech Limited as comparables, upholding the assessee's arguments. The issue regarding Jeevan Scientific Technology Limited was remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the documents seized in the Dummy Tally Account belonged to the third party, i.e., the assessee, and that the AO had the alternative remedy of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The cross objections challenging the validity of the issue of notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2011-12 were remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the documents seized in the Dummy Tally Account belonged to the third party, i.e., the assessee, and that the AO had the alternative remedy of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The cross objections challenging the validity of the issue of notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2011-12 were remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions, directed the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 80-IB by excluding the net income from service charges after reducing the expenses incurred for earning such income.

The Tribunal held that the documents seized in the Dummy Tally Account belonged to the third party, i.e., the assessee, and that the AO had the alternative remedy of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The cross objections challenging the validity of the issue of notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2011-12 were remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the documents seized in the Dummy Tally Account belonged to the third party, i.e., the assessee, and that the AO had the alternative remedy of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The cross objections challenging the validity of the issue of notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2011-12 were remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the documents seized in the Dummy Tally Account belonged to the third party, i.e., the assessee, and that the AO had the alternative remedy of initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The cross objections challenging the validity of the issue of notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2011-12 were remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the amounts received were trade advances for the supply of goods and not loans or deposits in terms of Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D could not be sustained.

The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had not provided a speaking order and had relied solely on the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) findings without independent analysis. Therefore, the matter was restored to the DRP for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while forward contract losses related to export business can be treated as business loss, the loss cannot exceed the total export turnover. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the decision in Goetze India was not applicable as the assessee had only corrected a figure in Form 10CCB, not made a fresh claim. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the 183-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.

The tribunal held that the AO was justified in treating the unsecured loan as unexplained credit and confirmed the addition for suppressed sales due to a lower price on cash sales. However, the tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the closing stock valuation, directing the AO to follow the assessee's consistent method.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient and reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs. As the tax effect was below this limit, the Revenue was advised not to press the appeal.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's argument that if the addition was agreed upon, the assessee should not have appealed to the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the assessment records and verify if the addition was indeed agreed upon.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed the order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh examination after providing an opportunity.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed due to the BAPA covering the disputed issues.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, as it is a normal commercial practice for computing income. The issue regarding accumulation of income was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, as it is a normal commercial practice for computing income. The issue regarding accumulation of income was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as they were not maintainable before the ITAT. The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. One of the revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the other was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as they were not maintainable before the ITAT. The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. One of the revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the other was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's calculation of ALP was unclear and remitted the issue back to the TPO for recalculation. The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding foreign exchange loss, relying on a precedent, and dismissed the ground concerning written-off advances.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's calculation of ALP was unclear and remitted the issue back to the TPO for recalculation. The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding foreign exchange loss, relying on a precedent, and dismissed the ground concerning written-off advances.

The Tribunal held that the donation for the ring road was a revenue expenditure allowable as a deduction, upholding the AO's original decision. However, for the other disputed items (cash payments, group incentives, prior period adjustments), the CIT was justified in directing the AO to re-examine their allowability.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, as it is a normal commercial practice for computing income. The issue regarding accumulation of income was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as they were not maintainable before the ITAT. The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. One of the revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the other was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as they were not maintainable before the ITAT. The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. One of the revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the other was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee concerning the treatment of fixed deposits as application of income. The assessee withdrew this additional ground during the hearing.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the eligibility of interest income for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. This is in light of conflicting High Court decisions and the need to ascertain the source of funds for the investments.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, as it is a normal commercial practice for computing income. The issue regarding accumulation of income was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the issue of contribution to the employee benefit scheme should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, referencing previous orders in the assessee's own case. Regarding doctor relationship expenses, the Tribunal found no violation of rules regarding additional evidence and upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's calculation of ALP was unclear and remitted the issue back to the TPO for recalculation. The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding foreign exchange loss, relying on a precedent, and dismissed the ground concerning written-off advances.

The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the annual report of Persistent Systems Limited, found no reason to disregard its earlier order. The Tribunal followed its previous decision and decided the issue in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable if no exempt income is actually received. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal ruled that expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A if no income has been received.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the eligibility of interest income for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. This is in light of conflicting High Court decisions and the need to ascertain the source of funds for the investments.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not computed the disallowance under Section 14A in accordance with Rule 8D. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision following Rule 8D.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to obtain a certificate from the RBI regarding its business nature, and the AO was to decide the deduction claim based on this and the facts of the case in light of relevant High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the issue of contribution to the employee benefit scheme should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, referencing previous orders in the assessee's own case. Regarding doctor relationship expenses, the Tribunal found no violation of rules regarding additional evidence and upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 as they were not maintainable before the ITAT. The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. One of the revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the other was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that even in a best judgment assessment, the AO cannot ignore the actual loss incurred by the assessee. The addition made by the AO, which was confirmed by the CIT(A), was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to obtain a certificate from the RBI regarding its business nature, and the AO was to decide the deduction claim based on this and the facts of the case in light of relevant High Court judgments.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had entered into a unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with the CBDT. Consequently, the grounds raised in the appeal were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of six specific companies from the list of comparables, finding them dissimilar to the assessee's business operations. For two other companies, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd and Informed Technologies Ltd, the Tribunal also directed their exclusion based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal restored the issue of non-exclusion of certain non-operating expenses to the DRP for a fresh decision. It also directed the AO/TPO to allow the benefit of +/- 5 percent variation under Section 92C(2) to the assessee.

The tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-removal of defects and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is directed to examine evidence regarding the land being agricultural and, if it is found to be a capital asset, to obtain a report from the DVO under Section 50C(2) to determine capital gains.

The Tribunal held that even when deciding ex-parte, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it in limine. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.