ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied principles of natural justice as statements relied upon by the AO were not provided, nor was cross-examination allowed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, following precedent, held that the assessee could be entitled to deduction under Section 54F if the investment in construction was made within the period stipulated by Section 139(4) of the Act, even if the capital gains account deposit requirement was not met. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the claim for exemption under Section 54G. The assessee must provide necessary evidence to substantiate that the capital gains were utilized for acquiring assets for its business purposes, as per the provisions of the section.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was without basis as the Assessing Officer could not prove wilful or gross negligence by the assessee. The penalty was levied merely because the assessee's explanation was not accepted, which is insufficient for penalty imposition.

The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, fit the definition of 'co-operative society' under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not provided with copies of statements and related details, nor given an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that notices were not served to the assessee at her correct address, and therefore, the orders of the lower authorities could not be confirmed. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the quantum appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. Similarly, the penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after deciding the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO's discretion to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) is not mandatory. The reasons provided by the assessee for the lower sale price, such as 'Vastu' issues and proximity to a law college and wedding hall, were not considered valid grounds to reduce the market value.

The Tribunal found that a reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.

The Tribunal found the TPO's computation of the arm's length price (ALP) for sales commission and management fees to be arbitrary and lacking basis. It noted that the TPO had initially accepted services rendered but later characterized payments as royalty without sufficient justification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the TPO's computation of the arm's length price (ALP) for sales commission and management fees to be arbitrary and lacking basis. It noted that the TPO had initially accepted services rendered but later characterized payments as royalty without sufficient justification.

The Tribunal held that the land was acquired in 1995 and sold in 2004, thus it was a long-term capital asset and not a short-term capital gain or business income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the long-term capital gains by granting indexation benefits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.

The tribunal held that even ex parte orders must be decided on merits. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the matter was remanded back for a decision on merit after providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the land was acquired in 1995 and sold in 2004, thus it was a long-term capital asset and not a short-term capital gain or business income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the long-term capital gains by granting indexation benefits.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the method of calculating disallowance under Section 14A, referencing a Special Bench decision. The matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of facts.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable as it was vague and did not clearly state the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that service tax collected but not paid to the government exchequer before the due date of filing the return is disallowable under Section 43B. However, it allowed the assessee's alternative plea to allow the disallowance on actual payment in the year of payment.

The Tribunal excluded several companies from the list of comparables for both software development and ITES segments due to functional dissimilarity, high turnover, or brand value. The assessee's appeal was allowed in part, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the quantum appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. Similarly, the penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after deciding the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.

The Tribunal held that the capital gains and interest income are exempt under Section 10(23FB) as the beneficiaries have already offered their share of income. The notional interest income should also be granted the same exemption as other interest income.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the threshold specified by CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the property transaction and the cash found was adequately explained. However, regarding the expenses, the Tribunal found that while some expenses were justified, inflation could not be ruled out, leading to a partial disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that share application money, when shares are not allotted within a reasonable period, constitutes an international transaction. It also held that long-outstanding trade receivables from an AE are in the nature of loans. The Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute the arm's length interest using LIBOR for foreign currency remittances.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular is also applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired a right to specific performance of the sale agreement, which constitutes a capital asset. The compensation received for relinquishing this right is taxable as capital gains, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal held that excess expenditure incurred for charitable purposes in earlier years can be adjusted against the income of subsequent years. This adjustment is considered an application of income for charitable purposes in the year of adjustment.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that notices were not properly served due to an incorrect address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, respectfully following the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of M/s Chemifinvest Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was invalid as it did not specifically state the grounds for imposing penalty, violating the principles of natural justice. Following the Karnataka High Court judgment in CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty under section 271B as the assessee was not required to maintain books of accounts. Penalties under section 271(1)(c) were deleted due to vague penalty notices. The penalty under section 271AAB was deleted as there was no undisclosed income found.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the ladies' lack of familiarity with tax laws. The order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside due to the assessee not being afforded adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the asset in question was the right to obtain flats, which accrued on the JDA date (2010), making it a long-term capital asset. It also held that the date of the sale agreement, not the sale deed, should be considered for Section 54 eligibility, allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the e-appeal, noting the assessee's lack of awareness of the amendment and the subsequent filing upon being informed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that share application money, when shares are not allotted within a reasonable period, constitutes an international transaction. It also held that long-outstanding trade receivables from an AE are in the nature of loans. The Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute the arm's length interest using LIBOR for foreign currency remittances.

The Tribunal held that excess expenditure incurred for charitable purposes in earlier years can be adjusted against the income of subsequent years. This adjustment is considered an application of income for charitable purposes in the year of adjustment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits and, adhering to principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without proper intimation of the hearing date to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the property transaction and the cash found was adequately explained. However, regarding the expenses, the Tribunal found that while some expenses were justified, inflation could not be ruled out, leading to a partial disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned order.

The Tribunal noted that the difference between the assessee's books and creditors' accounts was substantial, and no confirmations were provided. Unlike a cited precedent with minor discrepancies, the current case lacked sufficient evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.