ITAT Bangalore Judgments — September 2020

M/S. GMR CORPORATE AFFAIRS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE - 3(1), BANGALORE

ITA 224/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (Form 64) and restored the issue to the AO. It was noted that Section 115U of the Income Tax Act, which deals with Venture Capital Funds, was not considered by the lower authorities.

LIKITH KOTHARI,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 700/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari's case, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision with specific directions.

SHRI KANTILAL GIRIDHARLAL JAIN,HOSPET vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, HOSPET

ITA 1572/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The tribunal decided that keeping appeals pending serves no purpose in such cases. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek recall if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme fails.

LIKITH KOTHARI,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 619/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari's case, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision with specific directions.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs M/S COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LTD, BANGALORE

ITA 816/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding belated employee PF contributions and forex losses, following precedents like Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. The issue of capitalized project expenses was also decided in favor of the assessee based on a prior ITAT order in the assessee's own case.

SHIVAPRASAD KOWDI,DHARWAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBBALLI

ITA 182/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had correctly decided the issue of LTCG by following a Karnataka High Court judgment and had also denied the Section 54F deduction due to lack of evidence of investment.

SHRI. ANIL GUPTA,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 211/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal heard the parties on the preliminary issue of limitation. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs M/S. AVASARALA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 112/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue based on a statement obtained from the assessee without confronting it to the AO or obtaining a remand report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

ITO, BANGALORE vs M/S CERNER HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

ITA 1044/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

M/S. KOLAR DISRTICT NIRMITH KENDRA,KOLAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1748/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeals as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) orders were set aside and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on merits.

M/S. KOLAR DISTRICK NIRMITHI KENDRA,KOLAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD- 2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1747/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeals as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) orders were set aside and the matter was restored for fresh consideration on merits.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs M/S LAKSHMI VANKETESH MINERALS, HOSPET

ITA 1790/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C could not be sustained as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search that related to the assessees. The assessments for the relevant assessment years were also found to be time-barred or completed prior to the search.

CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1088/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

M/S K.E.KANTHESH,SHIMOGA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, SHIMOGA

ITA 2486/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals once Form-3 was issued. Since the assessee had opted for the scheme and would be withdrawing the appeals, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeals pending.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs M/S COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 815/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding belated employee PF contributions and forex losses, following precedents like Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. The issue of capitalized project expenses was also decided in favor of the assessee based on a prior ITAT order in the assessee's own case.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs M/S LAKSHMI VENKETESH MINERALS, HOSPET

ITA 1789/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C could not be sustained as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search that related to the assessees. The assessments for the relevant assessment years were also found to be time-barred or completed prior to the search.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs M/S LAKSHMI VANKETESH TRANSPORT, HOSPET

ITA 1791/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C could not be sustained as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search that related to the assessees. The assessments for the relevant assessment years were also found to be time-barred or completed prior to the search.

M/S. ABHAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1152/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal decided that keeping such appeals pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opted out of the scheme.

SHRI. DILIP SURANA L/R OF LATE SRI. GHEWARCHAND SURANA,BENGALURU vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 2382/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and sought to withdraw their appeals. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE vs M/S. SOBHA RENAISSANCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 2516/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for an earlier assessment year was remanded to the CIT(A) for verification of the nature of expenditure. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remanded the current issue to the CIT(A) for verification of ownership of the developed products.

M/S. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BHALKI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1541/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, the appeals would need to be withdrawn. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.

M/S. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BHALKI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1540/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, the appeals would need to be withdrawn. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

ITA 177/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

M/S. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BHALKI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1539/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, the appeals would need to be withdrawn. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

ITA 178/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

M/S. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BHALKI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1537/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, the appeals would need to be withdrawn. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.

M/S. THE MERCHANTS LIBERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,GADAG vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1557/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose given the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.

M/S. THE MERCHANTS LIBERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,GADAG vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1558/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose given the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.

M/S. THE MERCHANTS LIBERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,GADAG vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1556/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose given the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.

M/S. SY TECH ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(2), BANGALORE

ITA 328/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee's belief regarding the limitation period might be honest and that factual aspects regarding email correspondence required verification. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to present facts and file a condonation petition if necessary.

M/S. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BHALKI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1538/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeals pending.

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

ITA 176/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

ITA 175/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

M/S. THE MERCHANTS LIBERAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,GADAG vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1559/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that keeping them pending would serve no purpose given the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE vs THE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LIMITED, CHITRADURGA

ITA 1937/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income on NPAs is not assessable as income, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

ITA 174/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

M/S. THE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CO-OP CENTRAL BANK LTD,CHITRADURGA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

ITA 2120/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income on NPAs is not assessable as income, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

M/S ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

ITA 587/BANG/2018[2001-02]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2001-02Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initiated settlement proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.

SMT. BHAWARI BAI SURANA L/R OF LATE SRI. GHEWARCHAND SURANA,BENGALURU vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2371/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and sought to withdraw their appeals. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

M/S. THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BHALKI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1542/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore, the appeals would need to be withdrawn. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

ITA 179/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

ITA 173/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

ASST.C.I.T., MYSORE vs SRI. R KRISHNA, MYSORE

ITA 1195/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The CIT(A) determined the net land transferred at 1,05,850.80 sq.ft. and adopted a fair market value of Rs. 350 per sq.ft. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the area transferred and the fair market value, allowing relief to the assessee.

M/S LG SOFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 52/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal corrected the ground of appeal from a corporate tax issue to an issue regarding the credit for advance taxes paid. The order dated August 5, 2020, is modified to reflect this correction.

M/S. TAAQ MUSIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 161/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable as the shares were allotted in the relevant assessment year. Regarding the valuation, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the valuation report, ensuring the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is followed and not changed, and that projections are based on data available at the time of valuation.

M/S TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2005-06 was valid. It allowed depreciation on capital portion of R&D expenditure and on capitalized interest expenditure, while dismissing grounds related to warranty provision, sales commission, and reimbursement of expenses.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs M/S LMG BRANDS INDIA PVT LTD, BANGALORE

ITA 3291/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the franchisee fees paid were for the right to use brand names for a limited period and were dependent on sales, not creating any enduring asset or ownership rights for the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure was correctly treated as revenue expenditure.

TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2005-06 was valid. It allowed depreciation on capital portion of R&D expenditure and on capitalized interest expenditure, while dismissing grounds related to warranty provision, sales commission, and reimbursement of expenses.

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs M/S APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

ITA 39/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal, following its consistent view in various decisions for the assessment year 2011-12, held that E-Infochips Ltd. did not satisfy the service income filter of 75%. Therefore, the company should be excluded from the comparables.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), MYSORE vs SMT. MAMATHA MOHAN, MYSORE

ITA 2706/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The CIT(A) determined the net land transferred at 1,05,850.80 sq.ft. and adopted a fair market value of Rs. 350 per sq.ft. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the area transferred and the fair market value, allowing relief to the assessee.