ITAT Bangalore Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) based on similar facts in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), following a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Welfare Board falls under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Income Tax Act, making TDS deduction on interest payments not obligatory. Therefore, the assessee cannot be deemed in default.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence clarifying that the donation was not to a corpus fund. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for depreciation on customer relationship rights should be allowed, following a previous year's decision. For depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claim, stating appellate authorities are not bound by limitations on claims made before the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's health issues. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal, noting that the assessee maintained books of account, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was restored to the AO for a fresh examination to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the liability.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is received or receivable. If exempt income is earned, the disallowance should not exceed the amount of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that associate members are to be considered at par with regular members for Section 80P deduction. For bank interest, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine whether the funds were out of liability or own funds, applying relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society had a high percentage of associate members, violating the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society became applicable, disallowing the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that Souharda Sahakaris are a form of cooperative societies registered under Karnataka law, and thus the denial of deduction solely on this basis is unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine other conditions for eligibility.

The Tribunal held that both the declared income of Rs. 2 Lacs and the cash withdrawals of Rs. 43,80,600/- should be considered as proper sources for the cash deposits. Consequently, the entire addition of Rs. 45.06 Lacs made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271F was not justified. They relied on the Bombay High Court's decision that returns filed under section 139(4) should be considered as filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1). The Tribunal also noted that the returns were refund returns and there was no loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals), finding the assessee's actions to be bona fide. The matters were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271F was not justified. They relied on the Bombay High Court's decision that returns filed under section 139(4) should be considered as filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1). The Tribunal also noted that the returns were refund returns and there was no loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that software expenses with a license period up to 2 years are revenue in nature and allowable as deduction, following a High Court judgment. For other grounds raised by the assessee, some were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, while others were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's specific contentions regarding non-furnishing of information from DIT (Investigation) and denial of cross-examination. Following precedent, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the addition, stating that the assessee failed to establish the receipt of Rs. 12 lacs from Mr. Devaraj, as Mr. Devaraj neither confirmed the transaction nor appeared before the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's disallowance was incorrect. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the quantum of amount spent by the assessee in constructing or purchasing a new residential house within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward-3, Davangere by his conduct and actions, and therefore, the assessment order was valid. The plea regarding the limitation period under Section 153(1)(b) was also rejected as inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's specific contentions regarding non-furnishing of information and denial of cross-examination. Following precedent, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 57(iii) should be allowed to the extent of the proportionate interest paid on the amount borrowed and lent to the wife, even if it exceeded the interest income received. The Tribunal also held that Section 40A(2)(b) was not applicable to income from other sources.

The Tribunal found contradictory findings by the AO regarding the genuineness of services rendered by the foreign entity. The CIT(A) improperly used additional evidence without admitting it or calling for a remand report. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo examination.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of interest paid to NBFCs to the AO for verification. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on wages expenditure. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271F was not justified. They relied on the Bombay High Court's decision that returns filed under section 139(4) should be considered as filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1). The Tribunal also noted that the returns were refund returns and there was no loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates no appeal filing for tax effects below Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeals were dismissed on maintainability.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a decision on merits. The Tribunal also held that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to pass the revision order under Section 263 as an appeal was already pending before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the view that the lease rent was an allowable revenue expenditure. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Empire Jute Co. Ltd.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not appear on two occasions, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be provided. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's inaction, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order based on principles of natural justice. One more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(Appeals), subject to a cost.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's contentions regarding non-furnishing of information from DIT (Investigation) and denial of cross-examination. Following precedent, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that Section 46A is applicable to the buyback of shares and that Section 47(iv) is not applicable because the parent company did not hold the entire share capital of the subsidiary company, either directly or through nominees. The Tribunal also noted that Section 45 and Section 46A operate in different fields.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals), finding the assessee's actions to be bona fide. The matters were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the capital gain was declared in AY 2013-14, but the assessee argued it should have been assessed in AY 2006-07 due to a joint development agreement. Since the facts regarding the assessment of capital gains in different years were unclear, the issue was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a decision on merits. The Tribunal also held that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to pass the revision order under Section 263 as an appeal was already pending before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271F was not justified. They relied on the Bombay High Court's decision that returns filed under section 139(4) should be considered as filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1). The Tribunal also noted that the returns were refund returns and there was no loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that Section 46A is applicable to the buyback of shares and that Section 47(iv) is not applicable because the parent company did not hold the entire share capital of the subsidiary company, either directly or through nominees. The Tribunal also noted that Section 45 and Section 46A operate in different fields.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence or valid justification for making cash payments on a Sunday due to business exigency. The reliance on a High Court decision was deemed not applicable to the present facts.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were functionally dissimilar and directed their exclusion. It also ruled that telecommunication expenses should be included in computing the deduction under Section 10A, following a High Court decision. The Tribunal remanded one ground to the TPO for re-examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's contentions regarding non-furnishing of information from DIT (Investigation) and denial of cross-examination. Following precedent, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of proportionate interest on advances to directors was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. However, the disallowance of wages was confirmed due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not comply with the directions due to various reasons and granted one more opportunity. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the issue of registration was restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates no appeal filing for tax effects below Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeals were dismissed on maintainability.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A can only be triggered if there is exempt income. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. The issue of short-term capital loss was dismissed as it was not raised before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and provide all necessary details.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a decision on merits. The assessee will be granted a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that rental income earned during the construction period of a hotel should be treated as income from house property, not business income. It also upheld the treatment of trial run expenditure as a business loss, not part of capital work in progress.