ITAT Bangalore Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10 during the assessment proceedings, after the Section 263 revision, is sufficient compliance as it provides the necessary details to the AO. The claim for depreciation was also allowed.

The Tribunal accepted the request to withdraw the appeals but denied the liberty to file an appeal against a different ITAT order. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required in the absence of any exempt income. This decision was supported by High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempted income, following established High Court and ITAT precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to consider only investments yielding dividend income for computing average value of investments.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- and update their address in PAN.

The Tribunal held that a Souharda Sahakari registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, is a co-operative society for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. The denial of deduction based on the distinction between 'co-operative' and 'co-operative society' was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting documents not produced before the AO and granting relief without allowing the AO to verify them. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on CCDs for the pre-conversion period should be treated as interest on debt and is allowable under the Income Tax Act. However, the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) of this interest was not decided and was restored to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer.

The Tribunal observed that the appeal was not maintainable as it should have been filed as a Miscellaneous Petition (MP) to rectify mistakes in the earlier order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the bank balance was disclosed after regrouping and netting off with sundry debtors. The assessee's explanation regarding the adjustment of payments in the sundry debtors account was not adequately addressed during assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the transactions. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% for the flower boutique business, considering the AO's acceptance of the same rate in subsequent years.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated Rule 46A by accepting additional evidence without a remand report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the issue of alleged unaccounted stock for AY 2014-15 was still pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue of profit on the sale of such stock in the current year could not be decided simultaneously. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a simultaneous decision.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on CCDs for the pre-conversion period should be treated as interest on debt and is allowable under the Income Tax Act. However, the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) of this interest was not decided and was restored to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the issue in dispute was covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims before the authorities. However, considering the reassessment was confirmed by the High Court, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the issue in dispute was covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the issue in dispute was covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the right to be heard cannot be denied to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5000/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on High Court judgments that allow the computation of income for charitable trusts on commercial principles. This includes allowing the adjustment of expenses incurred in earlier years against income in subsequent years as application of income.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), finding that the capital gains should be taxed in the year of the final JDA, which was determined to be AY 2008-09. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the electronically filed submissions. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) to call for a remand report from the AO. The AO is to verify the details submitted by the assessee, and the assessee must produce all necessary documents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of interest attributable to inventory, following previous years' orders where the Revenue did not appeal. It also upheld the deletion of addition on wages, following a Tribunal decision on contract receipts and labour charges.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on prior period expenses and donations/charity, finding the assessee failed to establish crystallization of expenses and nexus with business respectively. The issue of travelling and loan processing charges was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of donation to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Regarding the licence fees and related expenses, the Tribunal followed its previous decisions and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for not deducting tax at source based on a retrospective amendment to the law. The obligation to deduct tax arises at the time of payment, and retrospective amendments cannot create a liability for past transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for not deducting tax at source based on a retrospective amendment to the law. The obligation to deduct tax arises at the time of payment, and retrospective amendments cannot create a liability for past transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for not deducting tax at source based on a retrospective amendment to the law. The obligation to deduct tax arises at the time of payment, and retrospective amendments cannot create a liability for past transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for not deducting tax at source based on a retrospective amendment to the law. The obligation to deduct tax arises at the time of payment, and retrospective amendments cannot create a liability for past transactions.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for not noticing the hearing notices plausible and not indicative of malafide. It held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for not noticing the hearing notices plausible and not indicative of malafide. It held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for not noticing the hearing notices plausible and not indicative of malafide. It held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain why taxes paid by the employer should not be given credit and did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for not noticing the hearing notices plausible and not indicative of malafide. It held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the ESI contribution based on a Karnataka High Court ruling. However, for the carry forward of losses, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded it back for fresh examination after confronting the additional evidence with the AO.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) needs to be re-examined by the AO in light of Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that payments received for software licenses are royalty income taxable in India, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions. However, it ruled that interest under Section 234B is not chargeable for non-residents.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of donation to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Regarding the licence fees and related expenses, the Tribunal followed its previous decisions and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for not noticing the hearing notices plausible and not indicative of malafide. It held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. It found that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's classification of branches as 'rural' for deduction purposes, which was based on existing material and not a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. It found that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's classification of branches as 'rural' for deduction purposes, which was based on existing material and not a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. It found that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's classification of branches as 'rural' for deduction purposes, which was based on existing material and not a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has provided the interest-free advance to the Welfare Trust out of surplus funds and not out of borrowed funds. The advance was for the betterment of employee welfare, which is considered to be for the purpose of business.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. It found that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's classification of branches as 'rural' for deduction purposes, which was based on existing material and not a mere change of opinion. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the entire disputed issues to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income-tax Department.

The Tribunal held that Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016, and the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.