ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in Smt.Leelaben B.Patel v. ITO and Shri Ramesh Kumar Shah Vs. ACIT, and also referencing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. The core issue was that the AO's adverse inferences regarding the genuineness of share transactions were based on investigation reports and statements of third parties, which were not fully provided to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination afforded. The Tribunal held that these infirmities go to the root of the matter and require fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to confront the assessee with all documents relied upon and provide an opportunity for cross-examination of persons whose statements were used. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from going into any other grounds of appeal raised by the assessees at this stage.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to file a proper condonation petition for the delay, which the CIT(A) was to decide in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the arm's length price based on a revised set of comparable companies after excluding certain entities. The issue regarding the Section 10A deduction on the reversed provision was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the Pr. CIT. Therefore, the revision order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the Pr. CIT for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not issue a direction to tax the capital gains in AY 2007-08, but rather expressed an opinion that the assessee was liable to be taxed in that year. Therefore, the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was rejected.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in Smt.Leelaben B.Patel v. ITO and Shri Ramesh Kumar Shah Vs. ACIT, and also referencing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. The core issue was that the AO's adverse inferences regarding the genuineness of share transactions were based on investigation reports and statements of third parties, which were not fully provided to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination afforded. The Tribunal held that these infirmities go to the root of the matter and require fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to confront the assessee with all documents relied upon and provide an opportunity for cross-examination of persons whose statements were used. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from going into any other grounds of appeal raised by the assessees at this stage.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the arm's length price based on a revised set of comparable companies after excluding certain entities. The issue regarding the Section 10A deduction on the reversed provision was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the arm's length price based on a revised set of comparable companies after excluding certain entities. The issue regarding the Section 10A deduction on the reversed provision was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that deposits in bank accounts should be considered as business receipts. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the net profit rate on these receipts to determine the income. The issue was remitted to the AO for quantification.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C was not sustainable. Following previous decisions, it was found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the default, as the issue was debatable and the bank acted on a bona fide belief.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's voluntary disclosure of the omission before detection by the AO negated the intent for penalty. The disallowance of interest for lack of proof also did not warrant penalty.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies (Thirdware Solutions Ltd., Infosys Ltd., and Mindtree Ltd.) were functionally dissimilar and should be excluded. It also directed that working capital adjustment should be allowed.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in Smt.Leelaben B.Patel v. ITO and Shri Ramesh Kumar Shah Vs. ACIT, and also referencing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. The core issue was that the AO's adverse inferences regarding the genuineness of share transactions were based on investigation reports and statements of third parties, which were not fully provided to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination afforded. The Tribunal held that these infirmities go to the root of the matter and require fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to confront the assessee with all documents relied upon and provide an opportunity for cross-examination of persons whose statements were used. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from going into any other grounds of appeal raised by the assessees at this stage.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in Smt.Leelaben B.Patel v. ITO and Shri Ramesh Kumar Shah Vs. ACIT, and also referencing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. The core issue was that the AO's adverse inferences regarding the genuineness of share transactions were based on investigation reports and statements of third parties, which were not fully provided to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination afforded. The Tribunal held that these infirmities go to the root of the matter and require fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to confront the assessee with all documents relied upon and provide an opportunity for cross-examination of persons whose statements were used. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from going into any other grounds of appeal raised by the assessees at this stage.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies (Thirdware Solutions Ltd., Infosys Ltd., and Mindtree Ltd.) were functionally dissimilar and should be excluded. It also directed that working capital adjustment should be allowed.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in Smt.Leelaben B.Patel v. ITO and Shri Ramesh Kumar Shah Vs. ACIT, and also referencing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. The core issue was that the AO's adverse inferences regarding the genuineness of share transactions were based on investigation reports and statements of third parties, which were not fully provided to the assessee, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination afforded. The Tribunal held that these infirmities go to the root of the matter and require fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to confront the assessee with all documents relied upon and provide an opportunity for cross-examination of persons whose statements were used. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from going into any other grounds of appeal raised by the assessees at this stage.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for adjudication afresh with a speaking order, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for adjudication afresh with a speaking order, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee entering into a Unilateral APA with the CBDT for the relevant assessment years.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee entering into a Unilateral APA with the CBDT for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that a Souharda Sahakari is a form of cooperative society and its claim for deduction under Section 80P cannot be rejected solely on this basis. However, other conditions for the deduction were not examined.

The Tribunal held that no assessment can be made on an HUF if it has been divided by partition at the time of assessment, even if the income was received when the HUF was joint. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as bad in law.

The Tribunal noted that it was unclear if the assessee had filed a proper petition for condonation of delay and that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with an opportunity to file a proper condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that deposits in bank accounts should be considered as business receipts. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the net profit rate on these receipts to determine the income. The issue was remitted to the AO for quantification.

The Tribunal held that deposits in bank accounts should be considered as business receipts. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the net profit rate on these receipts to determine the income. The issue was remitted to the AO for quantification.

The Tribunal held that deposits in bank accounts should be considered as business receipts. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the net profit rate on these receipts to determine the income. The issue was remitted to the AO for quantification.

The Tribunal held that the opportunity granted by the AO was illusory and an empty formality, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also erred in rejecting additional evidence, which is crucial for a fair hearing.

The Tribunal held that a Souharda Sahakari is a form of cooperative society and its claim for deduction under Section 80P cannot be rejected solely on this basis. However, other conditions for the deduction were not examined.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for adjudication afresh with a speaking order, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the issue of additional depreciation on refurbishing costs to the AO for examination. It directed the AO to delete the addition for commission payments, finding the liaison work genuine. The issue of excess provision for expenses was also restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal considered the inclusion and exclusion of various comparables for both software development and ITES segments. It directed the exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity and the inclusion of others.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), citing the need for substantial justice and referencing the Apex Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. The case was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires satisfaction of conditions. It found merit in the assessee's plea that mutual fund investments are managed by experts, and administrative charges are already factored in, thus avoiding double disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, is a form of co-operative society registered under a law in force in Karnataka for the registration of co-operative societies. Therefore, the revenue authorities' conclusion that co-operative societies and 'co-operatives' (Souharda Sahakari) are different and that the latter cannot be regarded as a co-operative society is unsustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed its earlier decision in the case of Sindhu Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamita. Consequently, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is a Souharda Sahakari and not a co-operative society. However, the Tribunal noted that the other conditions for allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) had not been examined by the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision regarding the allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), after examining all other conditions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely based on an admission during a survey or a sworn statement without corroborative evidence. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that a society registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, is a form of cooperative society and cannot be rejected solely on that basis. However, other conditions for the deduction were not examined.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 331 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), citing the principle of substantial justice and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that Souharda Cooperatives are a form of co-operative societies registered under Karnataka law and thus the denial of deduction solely on this basis is unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on other conditions for allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the trust had obtained registration under Section 12AA, and the second proviso to Section 12A(2) prohibits action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the trust had obtained registration under Section 12AA, and the second proviso to Section 12A(2) prohibits action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the trust had obtained registration under Section 12AA, and the second proviso to Section 12A(2) prohibits action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the trust had obtained registration under Section 12AA, and the second proviso to Section 12A(2) prohibits action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of 'Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd.' as a comparable company and the exclusion of 'Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd.', 'Persistent Systems Ltd.', and 'Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd.' based on turnover criteria.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to verify details of deposit holders, especially those who are agriculturists and do not have taxable income, before raising a TDS demand. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's transfer pricing analysis was based on an erroneous understanding of the assessee's business model and that the selected comparables were not appropriate. The corporate tax issues were also remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to verify details of deposit holders, especially those who are agriculturists and do not have taxable income, before raising a TDS demand. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court had ruled that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, qualify as cooperative societies for the purpose of Section 80P. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue interest due to the failure to make proper enquiries regarding the applicability of Section 80AC to the Section 80IA deduction claim. The Pr.CIT rightly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the trust had obtained registration under Section 12AA, and the second proviso to Section 12A(2) prohibits action under Section 147 for non-registration in preceding years. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, and since there was no exempt income, no disallowance was permissible. Regarding the negative opening stock, the Tribunal found no justification for the addition in the current assessment year.