ITAT Bangalore Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the pending appeal after filing under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

For provisions for bad and doubtful debts, the appeals were restored to the AO to decide in accordance with Section 158A, as an identical issue was pending before the Supreme Court. For provisions for scrapped/faulty assets, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld, following a coordinate bench's order.

For provisions for bad and doubtful debts, the appeals were restored to the AO to decide in accordance with Section 158A, as an identical issue was pending before the Supreme Court. For provisions for scrapped/faulty assets, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld, following a coordinate bench's order.

For provisions for bad and doubtful debts, the appeals were restored to the AO to decide in accordance with Section 158A, as an identical issue was pending before the Supreme Court. For provisions for scrapped/faulty assets, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld, following a coordinate bench's order.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and decided on several comparable companies. It directed the exclusion of Persistent Systems Limited and the inclusion of Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The issues concerning LGS Global Limited were remitted back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It directed the inclusion of Acropetal Technologies Limited and R S Software Limited as comparables, while upholding the exclusion of E-Infochips Limited, Infosys Limited, and L & T Infotech Limited.

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

The Tribunal held that since the provision was not claimed as a deduction in the earlier year, its reversal and subsequent increase in profit cannot be taxed in the current year. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

For provisions for bad and doubtful debts, the appeals were restored to the AO to decide in accordance with Section 158A, as an identical issue was pending before the Supreme Court. For provisions for scrapped/faulty assets, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld, following a coordinate bench's order.

The Tribunal, following a previous order concerning a co-director, decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO needs to verify if the expenses were incurred for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 28/1969 regarding deductibility of interest on loans taken to repay original loans for property construction remains applicable. It also clarified that the provisos to Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act apply only to residential properties and do not restrict deductions for commercial properties.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw grounds related to ALP as the issues were settled under an Advance Pricing Arrangement (APA). For the remaining ground regarding credit for advance tax, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for examination and allowance if found correct.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the method of valuation chosen by the assessee (DCF method) but can scrutinize the valuation report. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination as per the directions of co-ordinate benches.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and had received the necessary form. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the three appeals. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the three appeals. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal, noting that the issue was identical to a previous assessment year where the matter was restored to the CIT(A), directed the CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh for the current assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidences submitted by the assessee, as they were crucial to the issue. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the three appeals. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal, noting that the issue was identical to a previous assessment year where the matter was restored to the CIT(A), directed the CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh for the current assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a subsequent assessment year was decided by restoring the transfer pricing issue to the TPO/AO for de novo consideration. The Tribunal found the facts to be identical and followed the previous order.

The Tribunal held that the amortisation of premium paid on government securities is an allowable expenditure. This decision was based on previous orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and other similar cases.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the pending appeal after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 16,13,525 was correct as it represented a capital loss. Regarding the double disallowance claim, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to restore the matter to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the quantum needs to be computed based on various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that communication expenses should be excluded from both export and total turnover for Section 10A calculation, aligning with Supreme Court precedent. The issue of software expenses being capital or revenue was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were wrongly excluded or included by the TPO. It directed the TPO to exclude Accentia Technologies Ltd. and ICRA Online Ltd. (seg.) and include R Systems International Ltd. and Microgenetics Systems Ltd. The TPO was also directed to reconsider the margin for Jindal Intellicom Ltd.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies were wrongly excluded or included by the TPO. It directed the TPO to exclude Accentia Technologies Ltd. and ICRA Online Ltd. (seg.) and include R Systems International Ltd. and Microgenetics Systems Ltd. The TPO was also directed to reconsider the margin for Jindal Intellicom Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a merged entity is a rectifiable irregularity under Section 292B of the Act and dismissed the additional ground. However, the issue regarding the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) but the quantum needs to be computed. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of relevant High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that communication expenses should be excluded from both export and total turnover for Section 10A calculation, aligning with Supreme Court precedent. The issue of software expenses being capital or revenue was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on software license payments made prior to October 15, 2011, the date of the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Consequently, the demands raised under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), as well as the penalty under Section 271C, were quashed.

The Tribunal decided that most of the transfer pricing issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case and were to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The disallowance of provision for onerous contract was rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme and that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act to settle the dispute. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law regarding the quantum assessment, the additions made were debatable. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be moving an application for withdrawing the appeal. Since the assessee had already filed necessary applications under the scheme, the Tribunal decided not to keep the appeal pending.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) for AY 2011-12 to the AO for fresh examination. For AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to the extent of dividend income. The disallowance of compensation paid to Mahesh Bhupathi was confirmed, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for AY 2010-11 was restored to the AO for examining the applicability of the second proviso.

The Tribunal held that Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be interpreted liberally. If the assessee has utilized the net sale consideration for constructing a new residential house within the stipulated period, the failure to deposit it in a Capital Gains Scheme Account does not disentitle them to the exemption.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) for AY 2011-12 to the AO for fresh examination. For AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to the extent of dividend income. The disallowance of compensation paid to Mahesh Bhupathi was confirmed, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for AY 2010-11 was restored to the AO for examining the applicability of the second proviso.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) for AY 2011-12 to the AO for fresh examination. For AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to the extent of dividend income. The disallowance of compensation paid to Mahesh Bhupathi was confirmed, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for AY 2010-11 was restored to the AO for examining the applicability of the second proviso.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) for AY 2011-12 to the AO for fresh examination. For AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to the extent of dividend income. The disallowance of compensation paid to Mahesh Bhupathi was confirmed, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for AY 2010-11 was restored to the AO for examining the applicability of the second proviso.

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.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if needed.

The Tribunal held that for the sale of purely traded goods, the RPM method is the most appropriate method if no value addition has occurred. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer/TPO to apply RPM to the sale of traded goods after the assessee provides segmented details.