ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.

The Tribunal followed a previous order for the same assessment year and functional profile, holding that the six comparables in question (four for exclusion by assessee, two for exclusion by revenue) were not good comparables. It also held that the two comparables sought for inclusion by the assessee should not be included.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, without any new external material. The AO had previously allowed the deduction under Section 80P after examining the financial statements.

The Tribunal found the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) order to be cryptic and not a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the DRP for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal found the facts similar to a previous ITAT ruling where the AO was directed to conduct proper inquiry. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination and inquiry with the payee, after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the disallowance. It was held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision on all aspects, acknowledging a lack of clarity on several factual aspects of the present case. The Tribunal noted that Form 3CL had no legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry regarding the finance lease transactions and the allowability of depreciation, as evidenced by the assessment order and the notice issued under Section 142(1). Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that legal issues can be raised at any stage, even if not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the additional grounds. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding these grounds.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient breakup of expenses related to earning exempt income. However, the AO did not adequately examine the evidence provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found the assessee's argument about double taxation on admitted income and Section 68 additions to be realistic. Considering the additional grounds of appeal and the CIT(A)'s lack of observation on these aspects, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not fully considered all the evidence filed by the assessee regarding payments made to Miraclenet. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after verifying the application of funds in accordance with the trust's objects.

The tribunal is hearing the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the assessing officer under Section 40(a)(ia). The specific details of the additions and the assessee's grounds are not fully elaborated in the provided snippet.

The tribunal is hearing the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the orders of the CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the assessing officer under Section 40(a)(ia). The specific details of the additions and the assessee's grounds are not fully elaborated in the provided snippet.

The Tribunal found that the AO had incorrectly applied amended provisions of Section 80JJAA. It also noted that the nature of leasehold premises expenditure was not properly examined, and the MAT credit claim required AO's examination. Therefore, all issues were restored to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to company management changes and staff medical leave. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of several companies from the list of comparables used by the TPO, finding them not to be appropriate comparables for the assessee's software development services. The TPO was instructed to recompute the ALP based on these exclusions.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of advances written off, finding the assessee failed to substantiate the write-off as it was recoverable from the parent company. The issue regarding credit card bills was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after confronting the evidences with the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submissions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that CBF expenses should be allowed subject to verification of mandatory contribution as per government notification. The Reserve for NOC was remanded for AO to verify its nature as a business expenditure or refundable amount. Penalties were remanded for AO to verify if they were compensatory damages for breach of contract.

The Tribunal held that Section 206AA, which mandates higher TDS rates for non-residents without PAN, cannot override beneficial provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) as per Section 90(2). Therefore, the lower DTAA rate should apply.

The Tribunal held that co-operative banks were not required to file AIR under Rule 114E prior to its amendment effective from April 1, 2016. The assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to a bona fide belief based on the prevailing law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, finding no new material from the revenue to controvert the earlier decision. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.