ITAT Bangalore Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court judgments on the issue and followed a previous ITAT decision. It restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration after examining the facts in light of relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that once TDS is deducted and paid to the government, credit should be given to the assessee. The issue was restored to the AO for limited examination and verification of the TDS credit claim.

The Tribunal remanded certain issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification and fresh consideration, including the claim for gratuity contribution and the computation of Section 10A deduction. The issue of lease rentals was also remanded.

The Tribunal held that the search warrant and subsequent assessment proceedings were invalid because the partnership firm did not exist on the date of the search. Therefore, the assessment was void ab initio.

The Tribunal remanded certain issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification and fresh consideration, including the claim for gratuity contribution and the computation of Section 10A deduction. The issue of lease rentals was also remanded.

The Tribunal remanded certain issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification and fresh consideration, including the claim for gratuity contribution and the computation of Section 10A deduction. The issue of lease rentals was also remanded.

The Tribunal held that the search warrant and subsequent assessment proceedings were invalid because the partnership firm did not exist on the date of the search. Therefore, the assessment was void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's role as a procuring agent was demonstrated by the MOU and sale deed. The Assessing Officer's assumption of the assessee being the rightful owner and applying Section 50C was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that dead rent is allowable as revenue expenditure irrespective of mine operational status, following CBDT circulars and High Court decisions. It also held that environmental protection fees are compensation for environmental damage and not for acquiring enduring benefits, thus allowing them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the evidence for gratuity contributions and re-compute the Section 10A deduction. The issue of lease rentals was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies and allowed for a fresh computation of working capital adjustment. The appeal was partly allowed, indicating that some of the assessee's contentions were accepted while others were not.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal had become infructuous because the transfer pricing issues raised in the appeal were settled by the APA. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal, by respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Govt. of India, Min. of Finance and Others, held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, fit the definition of 'co-operative society' as per Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court's reasoning emphasized that the legislative object of Section 80P is to promote the co-operative movement and that entities registered under co-operative enactments, regardless of nomenclature, should be treated as co-operative societies. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in light of the High Court's judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also granted liberty to raise any other issue deemed fit. The same directions were applied to the other two appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have considered the additional evidence and pointed out discrepancies instead of outrightly dismissing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the search warrant and subsequent assessment proceedings were invalid because the partnership firm did not exist on the date of the search. Therefore, the assessment was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that income offered to tax pursuant to a voluntary TP adjustment made under an APA is eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. The proviso to Section 92C(4) does not bar such a claim as it applies to adjustments made by the TPO, not voluntary adjustments.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine whether the loans were received in the current year or earlier years and pass a reasoned order after considering evidence.

The Tribunal rejected the ground regarding the improper assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the issues concerning the set-off of brought forward losses and MAT credit were restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, as their determination was dependent on the outcome of earlier pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that notices issued in the name of a deceased person, when the department was aware of the death, are invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on such invalid notices is also void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed.

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 the AO's notice was not clear as to whether the allegation was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal rejected the ground regarding the improper assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the issues concerning the set-off of brought forward losses and MAT credit were restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, as their determination was dependent on the outcome of earlier pending appeals.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the assessee's ground challenging the quantum of capital gains. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable only to the transfer of land or building or both, not to the transfer of shares in a company. Therefore, the AO's invocation of Section 50C was incorrect.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees would be withdrawing their appeals in due course. Since applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme were filed, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn due to the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous because the connected revenue appeal was already decided.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees would be moving applications to withdraw their appeals. Since the assessees had already initiated the process under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeals pending.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw both appeals. One appeal was withdrawn as the issues were already finalized, and the other was withdrawn to avail the benefit of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to reasonable cause. It held that the electronic appeal should be admitted and adjudicated on merits, and the ex parte order lacked proper opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to reasonable cause. It held that the electronic appeal should be admitted and adjudicated on merits, and the ex parte order lacked proper opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to reasonable cause. It held that the electronic appeal should be admitted and adjudicated on merits, and the ex parte order lacked proper opportunity for hearing.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw both appeals. One appeal was withdrawn as the issues were already finalized, and the other was withdrawn to avail the benefit of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The Tribunal accepted the submissions of the assessees' representative. The appeals were consequently treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the submissions of the assessees' representative. The appeals were consequently treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the submissions of the assessees' representative. The appeals were consequently treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the submissions of the assessees' representative. The appeals were consequently treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54F as she owned more than one residential house on the date of transfer. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of the cost of acquisition to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to consider the claim for risk adjustment based on provided details, following previous years' orders. It also remanded certain comparable selection issues back to the DRP for fresh adjudication and allowed the ground regarding guarantee commission at 0.5%.

The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.

The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.

The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.

The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.

The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.

The Tribunal relied on several case laws, including those emphasizing that loose sheets found during searches have limited evidentiary value and that retractions of statements need to be supported by cogent material. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on such evidence was upheld in certain instances.

The Tribunal restored both issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was because the Section 12A registration was granted post-CIT(A) orders, and sufficient donor details were available to decide the anonymous donation issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also admitted the additional evidence sought by the assessee and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, without commenting on the merits.