ITAT Bangalore Judgments — November 2019

DCIT, BANGALORE vs M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1367/BANG/2015[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2469/BANG/2018[2008-09 ]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2818/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2470/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs M/S.VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1313/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE vs M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD, BANGALORE

ITA 1177/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE vs M/S. VODAFONE SOUTH LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1312/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

SRI B BASAVARAJ,BANGALORE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(5), BANGALORE

ITA 2317/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was cryptic and lacked a proper finding on the assessee's submissions regarding jurisdiction under Section 153C. Therefore, the order was set aside to allow the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate afresh.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BALLARI vs SRI THANGARAJ PATHAN, BALLARI

ITA 467/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not give proper consideration to the assessee's submissions regarding reconciliation and diesel expenses. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination.

ANOOP SHETTY,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 2126/BANG/2017[2004-05]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2004-05Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing and set aside the CIT(Appeals) order. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication with proper hearing.

T D POWER LTD,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

ITA 2003/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery not eligible for weighted deduction. For the interest disallowance, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify if the advances were made from non-interest bearing funds.

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DYDIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1160/BANG/2015[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, for the FTS aspect, the issue was decided in favor of the assessee, following previous tribunal orders.

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DYDIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1161/BANG/2015[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-2(1)(IT), BANGALORE vs M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD, BANGALORE

ITA 192/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

M/S SRI SOMESHWARA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,MYSORE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), MYSORE

ITA 391/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to submit the demand notice and substantiate their case.

PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT,BAGALKOT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BAGALKOT

ITA 2630/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was to examine the facts in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumkur Merchants Co-operative Society.

M/S ARATTUKULAM INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 223/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merit. The assessee's stay petition was dismissed as it did not survive.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs M/S. KONTOOR BRANDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 1431/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the revenue was filing a second appeal for the same order and assessment year, which was already decided by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the current appeal was deemed infructuous.

M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2473/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, the aspect of whether these payments constitute FTS was decided in favour of the assessee.

M.S VODAFONE MOBILES SERVICES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2472/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that IUC/bandwidth charges for interconnect services fall under 'process royalty' and are taxable, requiring TDS. However, for the FTS aspect, the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee, following earlier precedents.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1477/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs M/S MPHASIS LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 1692/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 206AA. Therefore, tax deduction at source should be applied as per the DTAA rates, not the higher rates prescribed by Section 206AA when PAN is not furnished.

M/S DEEPA DEVELOPERS,MANGALORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE

ITA 44/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to prove that the recipient included the interest income in their returns. For the Rolls Royce car, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the lifetime tax as revenue expenditure, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU vs SHRI. MOHAMMED IMRAN, BENGALURU

ITA 1193/BANG/2017[2012 - 13]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs M/S MPHASIS LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 1693/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 206AA. Therefore, tax deduction at source should be applied as per the DTAA rates, not the higher rates prescribed by Section 206AA when PAN is not furnished.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs M/S MPHASIS LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 1691/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 206AA. Therefore, tax deduction at source should be applied as per the DTAA rates, not the higher rates prescribed by Section 206AA when PAN is not furnished.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs M/S MPHASIS LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 1690/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 206AA. Therefore, tax deduction at source should be applied as per the DTAA rates, not the higher rates prescribed by Section 206AA when PAN is not furnished.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, CHITRADURGA vs M/S CHITRADURGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHITRADURGA

ITA 2018/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) and that the assessee was entitled to set off brought forward unabsorbed deficit.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, HUBLI vs M/S CHITRADURGA URBAN DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORUTY, CHITRADURGA

ITA 2020/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) and that the assessee was entitled to set off brought forward unabsorbed deficit.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1478/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1482/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1483/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1480/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1476/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

SMT. G. VANAJA vs DCIT,

ITA 1006/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not addressed the assessee's technical grounds concerning the legality of the notices issued under Section 153A and the assessment order passed under Section 153C. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1479/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1481/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

M/S. ROTARY ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1475/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.

SHRI.RAJESH SURESH VERNEKAR,DAVANGERE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

ITA 1746/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAICHUR vs M/S.SINGDHANUR URBAN CO-OPEWRATIVE BANK LTD., BELLARY

ITA 2294/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) granted relief without verifying the assessee's claim. Therefore, the issue of the quantum of deduction claimed requires verification.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU vs M/S INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES (INDIA ) PVT LTD, BENGALURU

ITA 2588/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remanded the issue of comparability of certain companies for fresh consideration by the TPO. It also directed that telecommunication charges should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A.

SUNIL BIRADAR PATIL,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1517/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh examination in the interest of natural justice. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee for not providing a proper explanation for non-appearance.

M/S INDECOMM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2130/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remanded the issue of comparability of certain companies for fresh consideration by the TPO. It also directed that telecommunication charges should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, HUBLI vs M/S CHITRADURGA URBAN DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY, CHITRADURGA

ITA 2021/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's activities were not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) and that the assessee was entitled to set off brought forward unabsorbed deficit.

SOUTH INDIA FREIGHT CARRIERS,BANGALORE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 2586/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that if the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6), disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) does not arise, even if there is a violation of Section 194C(7). Filing of Form 15J was considered directory, not mandatory.

SMT.SURAJDEVI SIPANI,BANGALORE vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(3), BANGALORE

ITA 551/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the disputed issue to the file of 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 within one month.

S N BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 106/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on previous year's orders. Regarding provisions for expenses, the Tribunal ruled that TDS liability arises only when income accrues to the payee, and since no bills were raised and provisions were reversed, no income accrued, thus no TDS was deductible.

M/S. KALKI COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1102/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the case was identical to the Samsung Electronics case decided by the Karnataka High Court and that the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court did not justify not following the High Court's decision. The grounds of appeal were also found to be general.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs M/S THE TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 113/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal in limine as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, making the revenue precluded from pursuing the appeal. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it supported the CIT(A)'s order.

M/S. TECNOVATE INDIA INNOVATIONS,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1323/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the Income-tax Department within one month.