ITAT Bangalore Judgments — October 2020

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 Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the scheme.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when there is no exempt income. It also held that the expenses incurred on machinery parts were allowable as current repairs, not capital expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparable companies by the DRP, finding them functionally dissimilar or lacking necessary data. It also upheld the DRP's decision regarding the exclusion of specific expenses from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following jurisdictional High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied Section 80JJAA deduction solely because employees did not meet the 300-day criteria in the preceding year, but remanded the issue for verification of the 300-day fulfillment in the current year. The foreign tax credit claim was also remanded for verification of evidence.

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 Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the scheme.

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 Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the scheme.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals and cross-objection to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that they could be revived if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a going concern and expenses incurred to keep the business alive, even during a lull, are deductible. It also ruled that no separate disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee's own disallowance was already subsumed and greater than the AO's calculation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 54EC deduction in AY 2008-09 was incorrect as the deduction was claimed in AY 2009-10. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked the jurisdiction to issue an enhancement notice on an issue that was not part of the original dispute before the High Court or the Tribunal. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to pass a speaking and reasoned order, which is a requirement for quasi-judicial authorities. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, following its established procedure for cases opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to pass a speaking and reasoned order, which is a requirement for quasi-judicial authorities. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 54EC deduction in AY 2008-09 was incorrect as the deduction was claimed in AY 2009-10. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not adequately consider the assessee's submissions regarding the nature of the remaining software expenses. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh, speaking order.

The Tribunal consigned the appeals and cross-objection to records and treated them as dismissed, subject to the condition that they could be revived if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal found that the TPO and CIT(A) failed to follow previous directions from the Tribunal and passed cryptic orders. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO/TPO for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal, following its practice in similar cases, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if issues arose with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, following its established procedure for cases opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the validity of assessment orders passed under section 153A cannot be ascertained without a clear finding on whether incriminating material was unearthed during the search. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on this aspect.

The Tribunal held that the absence of activities cannot be a basis to refuse 80G approval if registration under 12AA was granted. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the building was considered to be put to use from the date of its completion, as evidenced by the occupancy certificate, and therefore, depreciation and interest claims were allowable. The issue of deemed dividend was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the issue under the VSVS 2020 scheme and received a final certificate. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that there was no nexus between borrowed funds and investments made in preceding years. However, as these contentions were not clearly raised before the AO, the issue of interest disallowance was remanded back to the AO for re-examination.

The tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeals in due course after filing under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that it was incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, with a direction for the assessee to pay costs and provide correct address.

The tribunal decided that keeping such appeals pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they did not opt for the scheme or faced issues with it.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not provide sufficient reasoning for aggregating various expenses to the manufacturing segment. It also noted procedural lapses by the TPO in selecting comparables. Therefore, the issue was remanded for de novo assessment.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to relief received from the Assessing Officer. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's arrangement with its AE was a purchase of computer software, regardless of its distributor status. The Tribunal found that the assessee's accounting treatment and the nature of the transaction aligned with a purchase, making the lower authorities' decisions applicable.

The Tribunal held that the period for utilizing the accumulated surplus, as per Section 11(3)(c), extends to the year immediately following the expiry of the 5-year accumulation period. Therefore, AY 2013-14 was not the correct year for taxing the unutilized amount.

The Tribunal held that when a property is acquired by way of gift, the benefit of indexation should be allowed from the year the previous owner acquired the asset, not from the year of the gift. This is based on the legal principle that the period of holding and acquisition should be reckoned from the predecessor's acquisition date.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's judgment, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard and furnish copies of the investigation report and related statements.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal as part of the settlement process under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that seized documents were from a person other than themselves, thus rejecting the Section 153C plea. However, regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the evidence, necessitating a fresh examination.