ITAT Bangalore Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s restriction of reasonable delay to 180 days was arbitrary. Considering the facts, the entire delay of one year in finding a new accountant should be accepted as reasonable.

The Tribunal noted that the authorities below had not properly verified the agreement with BMRCL and the conditions therein. The nature of the provision for future claims was also found to be different from provisions considered in preceding years.

The Tribunal found a violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the AO an opportunity to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in changing the valuation method and not properly scrutinizing the DCF valuation report. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination as per the directions given in prior similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not entirely justified. While the PCIT correctly noted that interest from banks might not be deductible under Section 80P(2)(d), the assessee's claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest on temporary parking of its own funds needed further examination.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the assessee had applied 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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the advances were not forfeited as they were shown as outstanding liabilities and confirmed by the parties. The Tribunal also noted that the transactions did not involve the transfer of a capital asset by the assessee, thus Section 56(2)(ix) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's order to ignore the invalidity of returns was not in accordance with law, rendering the subsequent processing invalid. Consequently, the exemption granted by the CIT(A) on invalid returns was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's order to ignore the invalidity of returns was not in accordance with law, rendering the subsequent processing invalid. Consequently, the exemption granted by the CIT(A) on invalid returns was also set aside.

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

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's voluntary disallowance under Section 14A exceeded the dividend income, no further disallowance was warranted. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. This was to allow the assessee to submit additional evidence, which was not presented before the lower authorities, and for the AO to examine its relevance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had already initiated the settlement process. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the admission fees paid to the stock exchange constitute a capital asset, as it confers an intangible right of enduring benefit. Therefore, it is a capital expenditure, and depreciation is allowable.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the assessee required detailed examination of records and documents. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind during the remand proceedings and did not verify the evidence submitted by the assessee as directed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also erred in not admitting the evidence and dismissing the appeal without proper verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal noted that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move for recall if the Form 1 filed by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if necessary.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from producing evidence before the lower authorities due to various circumstances. Therefore, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate the source of funds.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, rendering the pending appeal before the Tribunal purposeless. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move for recall if the Form 1 filed by the assessee is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals once Form 3 was issued. Since the assessee had opted for the scheme, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271C was not sustainable. Following a previous decision of the Tribunal and a Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for not deducting tax and that the issue of taxability was debatable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in disallowing the set off of losses from STPI/SEZ units against non-STPI/non-SEZ income. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal allowed the entire advertisement expenses claimed by the assessee, overturning the AO's ad-hoc disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed before a Supreme Court judgment clarifying that co-operative societies not holding an RBI license for banking are eligible for deduction. Therefore, the issue was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271C was not sustainable. Following a previous decision of the Tribunal and a Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for not deducting tax and that the issue of taxability was debatable.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in disallowing the set off of losses from STPI/SEZ units against non-STPI/non-SEZ income. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal allowed the entire advertisement expenses claimed by the assessee, overturning the AO's ad-hoc disallowance.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were from the transfer of a capital asset and thus taxable as capital gains, not business income. The fact that consideration was received over time did not alter the nature of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271C was not sustainable. Following a previous decision of the Tribunal and a Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for not deducting tax and that the issue of taxability was debatable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were from the transfer of a capital asset and thus taxable as capital gains, not business income. The fact that consideration was received over time did not alter the nature of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were from the transfer of a capital asset and thus taxable as capital gains, not business income. The fact that consideration was received over time did not alter the nature of the transaction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move for recall if Form 1 filed by the assessee is not accepted by the revenue.

The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals as they 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 assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to deduct tax at source retrospectively, especially for payments made prior to the jurisdictional High Court's decision classifying software payments as royalty. Therefore, the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the CBDT's monetary limit, and the assessee's counsel also stated they were not pursuing the cross-objection. Therefore, both the appeal and cross-objection were dismissed.

The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to include 'I2T2 India Ltd' as a comparable company, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision. The issues regarding credit for advance tax, self-assessment tax, TDS, and MAT credit were restored to the AO for verification.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the peculiar circumstances, including the assessee's death. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to his file for adjudication on merits.