ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report but must adhere to the valuation method (DCF) opted by the assessee and cannot change it. The AO should re-examine the valuation report and, if necessary, obtain a fresh valuation report, confronting it to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the bonus paid to directors for services rendered, as authorized by a Board Resolution and in addition to their salary, should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal followed various High Court judgments that supported this view.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F of the Act for multiple units received in lieu of the JDA. Consequently, the AO is directed to allow the exemption, rendering other grounds academic.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F for multiple units received in lieu of the Joint Development Agreement, as per various High Court decisions. Therefore, no capital gains tax is chargeable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was in accordance with CBDT instructions which preclude the department from filing appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F of the Act in respect of multiple units received in lieu of entering into the JDA. Therefore, the AO is directed to allow the benefit of exemption under Section 54F.

The tribunal held that interest should be charged on advances made to partners, but it must be calculated on a daily cumulative balance, not just the closing balance. The enhancement of salary disallowance by the CIT(Appeals) was deemed bad in law due to the lack of mandatory notice.

The Tribunal held that the issue needs to be restored to the AO for a fresh decision. This is to examine the facts in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that services were actually rendered by the holding company and that the payments were commensurate with the benefits received. Therefore, the assessee did not discharge its onus to establish the arm's length price of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that services were actually rendered by the holding company and that the payments were commensurate with the benefits received. Therefore, the assessee did not discharge its onus to establish the arm's length price of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch of the assessment order, not the date mentioned in the order, determines the date of passing for limitation purposes. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal found the assessment orders to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch of the assessment order, not the date mentioned in the order, determines the date of passing for limitation purposes. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal found the assessment orders to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch of the assessment order, not the date mentioned in the order, determines the date of passing for limitation purposes. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal found the assessment orders to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch of the assessment order, not the date mentioned in the order, determines the date of passing for limitation purposes. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal found the assessment orders to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch of the assessment order, not the date mentioned in the order, determines the date of passing for limitation purposes. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal found the assessment orders to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on bridges is not allowable as the assessee is not the owner and the bridges were not used for business purposes in a manner that would entitle depreciation. However, the claim for allowing interest paid on HUDCO loans as revenue expenditure was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that services were actually rendered by the holding company and that the payments were commensurate with the benefits received. Therefore, the assessee did not discharge its onus to establish the arm's length price of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch of the assessment order, not the date mentioned in the order, determines the date of passing for limitation purposes. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal found the assessment orders to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also held to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) if the payees have offered the receipts in their income and paid taxes. The CIT(A) should have verified this by calling for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the holding period for capital gains should be reckoned from the date of the lease-cum-sale agreement, not the date of the absolute sale deed. It also held that deduction under Section 54F is allowable even if the new property is purchased in joint names.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), stating that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that the delay was not due to mala fide intentions. The appeal was then remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the significant price discrepancy between the sale agreement and the registered sale deed to be implausible. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed proper.

The Tribunal held that cash loans between close relatives do not attract the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, allowing the deduction. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the income was not from co-operative banks as defined in Section 80P(4).

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

For assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings. For assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the factual issue of whether a valid notice under Section 143(2) was served.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot disregard the profit or loss disclosed in the profit and loss account unless provisions of Section 145(3) are invoked. A mere fall in Gross Profit (GP) without defects in the books of accounts is not a sufficient basis to estimate income.

The Tribunal held that while the father's agricultural income was not sufficiently substantiated, a portion of the deposits could be explained by the assessee's salary savings. The addition was sustained to a reduced extent.

The Tribunal held that three companies with turnovers significantly exceeding the assessee's turnover should be excluded from the comparable set, following a High Court decision on turnover tolerance. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of MAT credit set-off for re-examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumukur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. still holds good regarding the nature of interest income. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after examining the facts in light of relevant judgments.

For assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings. For assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on whether a valid notice under Section 143(2) was issued.

For assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings. For assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the factual issue of whether a notice under Section 143(2) was validly issued and served.

For assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings. For assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the factual issue of whether a notice under Section 143(2) was validly issued and served.

For assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings. For assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the factual issue of whether a valid notice under Section 143(2) was served.

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the name of the assessee between the assessment order, the CIT(A) order, and previous Tribunal orders. To address this, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for rectification of the name in the appellate order.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for computing the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 80P depends on the nature of its activities and whether they violate the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The case was remanded for further examination of these activities, including obtaining clarification from the RBI.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54F for the entire amount reinvested in the joint purchase of the new residential property, following judicial precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 80P depends on the nature of its activities and whether they violate the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The case was remanded for further examination of these activities, including obtaining clarification from the RBI.

The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumukur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. still holds good regarding the nature of interest income. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after examining the facts in light of relevant judgments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored certain issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding interest income needs to be restored to the AO for fresh examination in light of Supreme Court and High Court judgments. For the deduction on agricultural implements, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to examine the claim limited to profits derived from dealings with members.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as incriminating material, including statements, was not confronted. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the significant reduction in sale consideration between the agreement and the registered sale deed. The addition made by the revenue authorities was deemed proper.

The Tribunal held that the deeming fiction under Section 50C, which substitutes the stamp duty value for the actual consideration when the latter is lower, has a limited application solely for the purpose of Section 48. For other provisions, the actual consideration specified in the sale deed should be considered. The Tribunal followed the decisions in Gyan Chand Batra v/s ITO and Nandlal Sharma v/s ITO, which held that the meaning of 'full value of consideration' in Explanation to Section 54F(1) is not governed by Section 50C. Therefore, while computing the exemption under Section 54F, the actual sale consideration is to be taken into account, not the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C. Since the assessee invested the entire net consideration in a new asset, there cannot be any incidence of capital gain tax. The addition made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal did not decide the other contentions raised by the assessee in view of the decision on merits.