ITAT Bangalore Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal noted that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeal would be withdrawn in due course. Keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending served no purpose.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The revenue had no objection.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the tribunal for recall of the order under Section 254(2) of the IT Act if they decided to opt out of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme.

The Tribunal held that the date of payment should be considered as the date the funds left the assessee's account, not the date reflected in the challan, especially for online payments. It relied on established legal precedents and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided ample evidence, including affidavits and revenue records, supporting the HUF's agricultural income. The lower authorities rejected these without proper examination or cross-examination, which was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as bank statements do not constitute the assessee's books of account. Furthermore, the assessee had opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, which limits the need for detailed scrutiny of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the full deduction of Rs. 71 lakhs as the investments were made within six months of the asset transfer, even though they spanned two financial years. The limit of Rs. 50 lakhs is per financial year, and the amendment restricting this was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the land could not be considered agricultural land solely based on its classification in revenue records or lack of notification under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b). Crucially, the absence of actual agricultural operations and the high sale consideration, indicative of real estate development, led to the conclusion that it was a capital asset.

The tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. They dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall if they opt out of the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the difference in turnover should be considered as part of the business turnover, and 8% income should be estimated on it. The addition of unexplained bank deposits was deleted as Section 44AD assessment precludes additions under Section 68/69A.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and remitted the issue of additions to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The ground regarding the non-service of notice u/s 143(2) was dismissed as not pressed.

The tribunal decided that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. They dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall if they opt out of the scheme.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the lower authorities failed to consider various documents and details submitted, including confirmations from investors, bank statements, and RBI registration certificates. The Tribunal found that the AO had brushed aside these documents without proper discussion, stating that confirmations and sources were not submitted, despite evidence in the paper book showing their submission. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's grievance regarding the non-provision of investigation reports and the denial of cross-examination opportunities. Given these procedural lapses and the failure of the AO to properly examine the evidence on record, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the issues on merit. Instead, it restored the entire matter, including technical and merit-based issues, back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including providing investigation reports, relevant statements, and allowing cross-examination of persons whose statements were used against the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that all issues remain open before the AO.

The Tribunal decided that keeping appeals pending would serve 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 was not opted for.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the lower authorities failed to consider various documents and details submitted, including confirmations from investors, bank statements, and RBI registration certificates. The Tribunal found that the AO had brushed aside these documents without proper discussion, stating that confirmations and sources were not submitted, despite evidence in the paper book showing their submission. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's grievance regarding the non-provision of investigation reports and the denial of cross-examination opportunities. Given these procedural lapses and the failure of the AO to properly examine the evidence on record, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the issues on merit. Instead, it restored the entire matter, including technical and merit-based issues, back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including providing investigation reports, relevant statements, and allowing cross-examination of persons whose statements were used against the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that all issues remain open before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds. It reasoned that a Section 154 rectification order modifies the original Section 200A intimation, making the rectified order appealable. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the lower authorities failed to consider various documents and details submitted, including confirmations from investors, bank statements, and RBI registration certificates. The Tribunal found that the AO had brushed aside these documents without proper discussion, stating that confirmations and sources were not submitted, despite evidence in the paper book showing their submission. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's grievance regarding the non-provision of investigation reports and the denial of cross-examination opportunities. Given these procedural lapses and the failure of the AO to properly examine the evidence on record, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the issues on merit. Instead, it restored the entire matter, including technical and merit-based issues, back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including providing investigation reports, relevant statements, and allowing cross-examination of persons whose statements were used against the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that all issues remain open before the AO.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the lower authorities failed to consider various documents and details submitted, including confirmations from investors, bank statements, and RBI registration certificates. The Tribunal found that the AO had brushed aside these documents without proper discussion, stating that confirmations and sources were not submitted, despite evidence in the paper book showing their submission. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's grievance regarding the non-provision of investigation reports and the denial of cross-examination opportunities. Given these procedural lapses and the failure of the AO to properly examine the evidence on record, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the issues on merit. Instead, it restored the entire matter, including technical and merit-based issues, back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including providing investigation reports, relevant statements, and allowing cross-examination of persons whose statements were used against the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that all issues remain open before the AO.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the lower authorities failed to consider various documents and details submitted, including confirmations from investors, bank statements, and RBI registration certificates. The Tribunal found that the AO had brushed aside these documents without proper discussion, stating that confirmations and sources were not submitted, despite evidence in the paper book showing their submission. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's grievance regarding the non-provision of investigation reports and the denial of cross-examination opportunities. Given these procedural lapses and the failure of the AO to properly examine the evidence on record, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the issues on merit. Instead, it restored the entire matter, including technical and merit-based issues, back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including providing investigation reports, relevant statements, and allowing cross-examination of persons whose statements were used against the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that all issues remain open before the AO.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they decide not to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessment should be completed based on the revised return filed with audited accounts, as the original return was based on unaudited statements. The issue of sundry charges was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, and the method of valuing loose tools was accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if the assessee decides not to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees would be moving applications to withdraw them in due course as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessees were granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would be moving to withdraw the appeal. As no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the levy of fees under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was questionable based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) should be levied only from the date of payment of TDS to the date of filing the e-TDS statements, as the statements cannot be filed before tax payment. The delay in payment of TDS itself is covered by other penal provisions.

The Tribunal held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 206AA, even if inconsistent. Therefore, tax deduction at source should be as per DTAA rates when applicable.

The Tribunal held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 206AA, even if inconsistent. Therefore, tax deduction at source should be as per DTAA rates when applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees would be moving applications to withdraw them in due course as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessees were granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees would be moving applications to withdraw them in due course as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessees were granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees would be moving applications to withdraw them in due course as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessees were granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if necessary.