ITAT Bangalore Judgments — June 2019

The Tribunal held that the commission payments were made to non-resident marketing agents for services rendered outside India. Since the income was not chargeable to tax in India, there was no obligation to deduct TDS, and consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to comply with DRP directions regarding turnover filters for software development services and that the DRP did not address all objections raised by the assessee. Consequently, the issue was set aside to the DRP for fresh analysis.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking and reasoned order as it decided the issue in a single line. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for fresh decision.

The Tribunal directed that the addition made to work-in-progress in the current year be considered as opening balance in the next year. For labour charges, the addition was restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disallowing depreciation on financial leases, citing a Supreme Court judgment, and set aside the issue for fresh adjudication. For TP adjustments, the Tribunal found the methodology flawed and restored the matters to the AO/TPO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by enhancing the addition without issuing a statutory notice and passed an ex-parte order. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not received the Section 200A orders, thus there was no delay in filing appeals. The CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals on procedural grounds without addressing the merits.

The Tribunal found a contradiction regarding the hearing on 19.12.2017 and decided that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that KPTCL's belief that its employees were State Government employees was bonafide, considering past practices and a High Court decision. Therefore, KPTCL discharged its obligation under Section 192, and proceedings under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were quashed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the assessee has made a full disclosure in the return of income and the AO has accepted the returned income. Additionally, the show cause notice for penalty was found to be defective for not specifying the exact charge.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were defective as they did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were defective as they did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the BDA's activities, including development and sale of sites and flats, were not undertaken with a profit motive but for planned urban development and social objectives. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the BDA was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that family transactions between near relatives, especially when genuine and without commercial intent, fall under the 'reasonable cause' provision of Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D is not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), holding that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The issue of levy of late fees was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), holding that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The issue of levy of late fees was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The CIT(A) allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, relying on the decision in General Motors India P Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no cogent evidence from the revenue to controvert it.

The Tribunal deleted disallowances under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) as no exempt income was earned. It also deleted disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) for advances to related parties, citing sufficient interest-free funds available to the assessee, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was unsustainable because the show-cause notice was defective, failing to specify the exact charge against the assessee. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal deleted disallowances under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) as no exempt income was earned. It also deleted disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) for advances to related parties, citing sufficient interest-free funds available to the assessee, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the assessee has made a full disclosure in the return of income and the AO has accepted the returned income. Additionally, the show cause notice for penalty was found to be defective for not specifying the exact charge.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were defective as they did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were defective as they did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were defective as they did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the BDA's activities, including development and sale of sites and flats, were not undertaken with a profit motive but for planned urban development and social objectives. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the BDA was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the BDA's activities, including development and sale of sites and flats, were not undertaken with a profit motive but for planned urban development and social objectives. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the BDA was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the BDA's activities, including development and sale of sites and flats, were not undertaken with a profit motive but for planned urban development and social objectives. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the BDA was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the AO relied on investigation reports and SEBI reports without confronting these documents to the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had declared the assessment orders for the relevant years null and void, the CIT(A)'s orders dismissing the assessee's appeals were to be set aside. The grounds urged by the assessee became infructuous.