ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- cost. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to hear and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without disposing of the assessee's objections against the reopening. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessment order was set aside, allowing the AO liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective as 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 found the notice invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54 for both flats purchased, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling that 'a residential house' can include multiple units. Consequently, the issue regarding Section 50C became academic.

The Tribunal restored the issue of non-service of notice u/s 143(2) and non-disposal of objections to the Assessing Officer for verification and a speaking order. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income.

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 lack of noticeable activities before applying for 80G recognition is subjective and not a valid basis for rejection. Since the trust was later granted 12AA registration, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the primary consideration for Section 80G approval is whether the trust's objectives are charitable, which was already established by its Section 12A registration. The extent of activities, if genuine, is not a sole ground for rejection.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid because the AO's findings varied across the assessment order, penalty notice, and penalty order. Following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

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 found that the property belonged to all three assessees based on settlement and succession laws. Therefore, the long-term capital gains and the benefit of deduction under Section 54/54F should be assessed in their respective shares.

The Tribunal found that the property belonged to all three assessees based on settlement and succession laws. Therefore, the long-term capital gains and the benefit of deduction under Section 54/54F should be assessed in their respective shares.

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.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's services were not high-end KPO, referencing a prior ruling. It directed the AO to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for transactions with non-US AEs based on the 15% markup agreed under the MAP, considering the prior ruling on service characterization.

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.

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 assessee was a conduit for tax avoidance but the transaction of buying and selling shares was real and thus taxable. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute interest under Section 234B at the rate of 1% per month.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make adequate inquiries regarding the assessee's obligation to deduct tax at source on payments to the foreign company. This failure rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude certain comparable companies, finding them to be functionally incomparable or having excessive related party transactions. The revenue's appeal challenging these exclusions was dismissed.

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 CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee received interest income was factually correct and had attained finality as the revenue did not appeal against it. Therefore, the AO's reasoning for disallowance, based on the absence of interest income, was no longer valid.

The Tribunal found the AO's basis for adopting a lower cost of construction to be vague and arbitrary. It restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after confronting the assessee with the details of the comparable case.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on short-term deposits made from promoter equity contributions during the construction phase is inextricably linked to the project. Therefore, it should be treated as a capital receipt to reduce project cost, not as taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the retention of 20% of sale proceeds by the CEC created uncertainty regarding its receipt by the assessee. Therefore, the sale proceeds had not accrued to the assessee in the relevant assessment year, making the AO's order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly applied the tie-breaker rules of the India-US DTAA. The assessee's centre of vital interests was found to be closer to the US for the period in question, allowing for treaty exemption.

The Tribunal found that the property belonged to all three assessees based on settlement and succession laws. Therefore, the long-term capital gains and the benefit of deduction under Section 54/54F should be assessed in their respective shares.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the advances had become bad or irrecoverable in the current assessment year. Consequently, the claims for these write-offs were not accepted as business losses.

The Tribunal allowed the filing of additional documents, including an allotment letter. It found that the allotment letter, showing a different cost of acquisition than the adjacent property, needed to be examined by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to being defective. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the levied penalties were also invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to being defective. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the levied penalties were also invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to being defective. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the levied penalties were also invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to being defective. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the levied penalties were also invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to being defective. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the levied penalties were also invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to being defective. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the levied penalties were also invalid.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill/non-compete fee is allowable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The issue of depreciation on interiors was remanded to the AO for adjudication after deciding the same issue for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned notices under Section 200A for computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The judgment was held to have prospective effect, and the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E was left open for a Division Bench.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned notices under Section 200A for computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The judgment was held to have prospective effect, and the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E was left open for a Division Bench.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned notices under Section 200A for computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The judgment was held to have prospective effect, and the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E was left open for a Division Bench.

The Tribunal held that the intention of the assessee was not to carry on business but to hold the property as an investment. Therefore, the income from the sale of sites should be treated as Capital Gains, not Business Income. However, the claim for exemption under Section 54F was denied as the re-investment was in agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that the intention of the assessee was not to carry on business but to hold the property as an investment. Therefore, the income from the sale of sites should be treated as Capital Gains, not Business Income. However, the claim for exemption under Section 54F was denied as the re-investment was in agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that the intention of the assessee was not to carry on business but to hold the property as an investment. Therefore, the income from the sale of sites should be treated as Capital Gains, not Business Income. However, the claim for exemption under Section 54F was denied as the re-investment was in agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill/non-compete fee is allowable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The issue of depreciation on interiors was remanded to the AO for adjudication after deciding the same issue for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, partakes the character of compensation and is therefore exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned notices under Section 200A for computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The judgment was held to have prospective effect, and the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E was left open for a Division Bench.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was not admitted for consideration and was dismissed in limine for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the intention of the assessee was not to carry on business but to hold the property as an investment. Therefore, the income from the sale of sites should be treated as Capital Gains, not Business Income. However, the claim for exemption under Section 54F was denied as the re-investment was in agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that if cash payments are not claimed as expenditure, no disallowance under Section 40A(3) can be made, remanding the issue to the AO. For sundry creditors, the directions were modified to require only PAN particulars.