ITAT Bangalore Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to rectify the defect as the notice was returned unserved. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the facts in light of Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal found that the AO had charged interest on the closing balance of the loan, which included prior interest, and had not considered the interest already charged by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine the commercial expediency of the advance.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The CBDT circular regarding monetary limits applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. It also upheld the allowance of depreciation on the non-compete fee, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders, on which the penalty orders were based, had been quashed, the penalty orders could not stand independently. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified if borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes without commercial expediency. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified if borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes without commercial expediency. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified if borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes without commercial expediency. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property occurred in 1995 when the agreement to sell was executed, full consideration was received, and possession was handed over. Therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in the assessment years when the sale deeds were executed.

The ITAT found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal decided that grounds related to transfer pricing issues in the revenue's appeal were to be rejected due to MAP resolution. However, the issue of software expenses was decided against the assessee, and the calculation of export turnover for deductions was upheld in favor of the assessee, following High Court and Apex Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that grounds related to transfer pricing issues in the revenue's appeal were to be rejected due to MAP resolution. However, the issue of software expenses was decided against the assessee, and the calculation of export turnover for deductions was upheld in favor of the assessee, following High Court and Apex Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that grounds related to transfer pricing issues in the revenue's appeal were to be rejected due to MAP resolution. However, the issue of software expenses was decided against the assessee, and the calculation of export turnover for deductions was upheld in favor of the assessee, following High Court and Apex Court judgments.

The Tribunal decided that grounds related to transfer pricing issues in the revenue's appeal were to be rejected due to MAP resolution. However, the issue of software expenses was decided against the assessee, and the calculation of export turnover for deductions was upheld in favor of the assessee, following High Court and Apex Court judgments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided specific findings on the assessee's submissions regarding the broker's modifications and the opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal decided that grounds related to transfer pricing issues in the revenue's appeal were to be rejected due to MAP resolution. However, the issue of software expenses was decided against the assessee, and the calculation of export turnover for deductions was upheld in favor of the assessee, following High Court and Apex Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified if borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes without commercial expediency. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not barred by limitation, following a coordinate bench's decision. However, it deleted the transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses, finding no international transaction and that the assessee's operating margins exceeded comparables.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasons for disallowing ESOP expenditure were not valid and followed previous binding ITAT judgments. The issue of prior period expenditure was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The Tribunal made no comment on the merits of the case.

The tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without mentioning any date of hearing or opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It noted that if the recipients have already offered the interest income for taxation, there is no loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property occurred in 1995 when the agreement to sell was executed, full consideration was received, and possession was handed over. Therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in the assessment years when the sale deeds were executed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee, as there was sufficient cause for not producing it before the AO due to non-receipt of notices. The assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided specific findings on the assessee's submissions regarding the broker's modifications and the opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified if borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes without commercial expediency. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified if borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes without commercial expediency. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified if borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes without commercial expediency. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal found that there were reasonable causes for the assessees' non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the non-production of records and the failure to demonstrate satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were invalid and quashed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the quashing of the assessment order and due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that due to the non-production of records and the failure to demonstrate satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were invalid and quashed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the quashing of the assessment order and due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that due to the non-production of records and the failure to demonstrate satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were invalid and quashed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the quashing of the assessment order and due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that due to the non-production of records and the failure to demonstrate satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were invalid and quashed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the quashing of the assessment order and due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that due to the non-production of records and the failure to demonstrate satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were invalid and quashed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the quashing of the assessment order and due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that due to the non-production of records and the failure to demonstrate satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were invalid and quashed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the quashing of the assessment order and due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. This was in light of the High Court's direction to keep issues open when a matter is sent back for redetermination and to consider the assessee's documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked a proper comparison of facts with the cited Supreme Court case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after allowing both parties to present evidence and arguments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked a proper comparison of facts with the cited Supreme Court case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked a proper comparison of facts with the cited Supreme Court case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to both parties to present evidence and arguments.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is only applicable if exempt income is earned. Regarding professional charges, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate that the payment was for its own business purposes, as it was related to arranging investments for a sister concern.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned on deposits with co-operative and nationalized banks. This decision followed a coordinate bench ruling which was based on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society.

The Tribunal found that the supplier was registered with the Commercial Tax Department, indicating existence. The assessee's inability to produce the supplier was considered reasonable given their closure. The matter was restored to the AO for further examination of payment of TCS, quantitative reconciliation of purchases and sales, and comparison with market prices.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. The assessee was given an opportunity to establish the utilization of interest-bearing borrowed funds for business or house property income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked a proper comparison of facts with the cited Supreme Court judgment. It held that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing grounds related to Australian entities were not pressed. For non-Australian entities, the same rate as per the MAP resolution for Australian entities should be adopted. The corporate tax issue regarding Section 10A deduction was decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is only applicable if exempt income is earned. Regarding professional charges, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate that the payment was for its own business purposes, as it was related to arranging investments for a sister concern.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is only applicable if exempt income is earned. Regarding professional charges, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate that the payment was for its own business purposes, as it was related to arranging investments for a sister concern.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) as payments were to individual laborers with vouchers less than Rs. 20,000, thus not attracting TDS provisions. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision on this matter.