ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal held that since the AO made no additions in the consequential order, the assessee's appeal has become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal followed a High Court judgment and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issue of interest under Section 234E in light of the High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee is directed to obtain clarification from the RBI regarding the nature of its business.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order leading to the penalty was set aside, the basis for levying the penalty no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee is directed to obtain clarification from the RBI regarding the nature of its business.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it lacked proper reasoning for accepting the assessee's claim regarding book profits. Therefore, the CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was justified.

The Tribunal held that an estimation of income cannot be made by the AO without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the addition made by the AO was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient time for the assessee to reply and did not consider the assessee's submission dated 04.03.2016. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted the revenue's submission to withdraw the appeal due to low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal, following decisions of the Supreme Court and its own prior ruling, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to re-examine the issue after fresh inquiry, considering the assessee's submissions and a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the assessee did not appear on the fixed date of hearing. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the matter back to his file for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the DRP's order regarding the re-characterization of functions to be cryptic and lacking detailed reasoning. Consequently, the entire transfer pricing issue was remanded back to the DRP for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, following the High Court's decision, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal found the DRP's order regarding the re-characterization of functions to be cryptic and lacking detailed reasoning. Consequently, the entire transfer pricing issue was remanded back to the DRP for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide cogent reasons for denying the deduction, and the assessee also failed to provide sufficient evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the eligibility of the assessee's R&D activities for Section 10B deduction required further examination. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a comprehensive review of the facts and deliverables, while also upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the exclusion of expenses from export and total turnover for Section 10A/10AA deductions.

The Tribunal found that the eligibility of the assessee's R&D activities for Section 10B deduction required further examination. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a comprehensive review of the facts and deliverables, while also upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the exclusion of expenses from export and total turnover for Section 10A/10AA deductions.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the ex-parte order was passed in violation of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided further opportunities for hearing in the interest of justice. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessment order passed in the name of the amalgamating company, as it was invalid. The Assessing Officer was permitted to pass an order in the name of the merged entity if legally permissible.

The Tribunal held that the activities of the Bangalore Development Authority are not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Consequently, BDA is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty proceedings was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the eligibility for exemption under Section 11 on merit, as the power of appellate authorities is not limited like the AO's. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a direct nexus between borrowed funds and bank deposits, proportionate interest expenditure should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from a cooperative bank is squarely covered against the assessee by the pronouncement in Pr. CIT vs. Totgars Co-op Sale Society. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The Tribunal found that forex gain/loss is operational if linked to exports/imports of the particular year. However, the facts regarding its relation to business operations were unclear.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) lacked the power to declare a TDS return as non est in law, as there is no specific provision for it in the Act. The CIT(Appeals) cannot travel beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which was the validity of the fee levy.

The assessee, having had their grievance settled by a subsequent order, chose not to press the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the activities of the Bangalore Development Authority are not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Consequently, BDA is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking and reasoned order regarding the recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this aspect.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 68 as the assessee was not carrying on business and did not maintain books of account. The Tribunal also found the assessee's explanation regarding agricultural income to be far-fetched and contradictory, suggesting it could be treated under Section 69.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order for non-deduction of TDS was unsustainable due to misinterpretation of law and lack of minimal inquiry. However, the CIT's action regarding depreciation on the effluent treatment plant was upheld, and the issue of interest under Section 244A was also upheld.

The revenue sought to withdraw its appeal during the hearing. The Tribunal permitted the revenue to withdraw its appeal.

The Tribunal held that the rectification application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit under section 154(7) of the Act. Therefore, the application was not maintainable, and the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s rejection of the 80G application based on the absence of noticeable activities was subjective. It noted the inconsistency of granting 12AA registration on the same day the 80G application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a direct nexus between borrowed funds and bank deposits, proportionate interest expenditure should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding the struck-off entry on page 41 of the seized material, deleting the addition. However, the explanation for the entry on page 7 was not fully accepted, leading to a partial allowance for one assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the applications. It found that the trust's objects were charitable and that the impugned clauses in the trust deed should be read in conjunction with the primary educational objectives. The Tribunal directed that registration and approval be granted.