ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initiated settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Since the dispute was being settled, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping the appeal pending and dismissed it.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the transaction as falling under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as the transfer was between relatives and the principle of 'profit from oneself' applied. The guidance value used by the AO was also found to be incorrect.

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

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 due to low tax effect. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal restored the issues of helicopter expenses and repairs & maintenance expenses to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, there is no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAB of the Act is applicable only when a search is conducted under Section 132 of the Act in the assessee's own case. Since no search was conducted in the assessee's case, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 due to low tax effect. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal restored the issues of helicopter expenses and repairs & maintenance expenses to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAB of the Act is applicable only when a search is conducted under Section 132 of the Act in the assessee's own case. Since no search was conducted in the assessee's case, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was not sustainable.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2013-14 due to low tax effect, below the CBDT's monetary limit. For AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2012-13, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the expenditure's utilization.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and received the necessary certificate. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

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

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'member' in cooperative societies acts often includes those admitted according to bye-laws, even if they have limited rights. The key is whether the associate members are considered 'members' under the relevant cooperative society act, not solely based on voting rights or eligibility for office.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2013-14 due to low tax effect, below the CBDT's monetary limit. For AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2012-13, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the expenditure's utilization.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2013-14 due to low tax effect, below the CBDT's monetary limit. For AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2012-13, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the expenditure's utilization.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2013-14 due to low tax effect, below the CBDT's monetary limit. For AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2012-13, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the expenditure's utilization.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2013-14 due to low tax effect, below the CBDT's monetary limit. For AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2012-13, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the expenditure's utilization.

The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate for tax arrears. Based on this, the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 2,24,000 due to unproven claims regarding individual payment thresholds for TDS. However, it allowed the Rs. 50,00,000 write-off as a genuine business loss incidental to acquiring property for SEZ development.

The assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal considered the application and allowed the withdrawal.

The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate for tax arrears. Based on this, the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for AYs 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2013-14 due to low tax effect, below the CBDT's monetary limit. For AYs 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2012-13, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the expenditure's utilization.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and received Form 3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA, as the agreement with BIAL was for developing, operating, and maintaining an infrastructure facility, and BIAL was considered a statutory body.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, there is no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'member' in cooperative societies acts often includes those admitted according to bye-laws, even if they have limited rights. The key is whether the associate members are considered 'members' under the relevant cooperative society act, not solely based on voting rights or eligibility for office.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order was non-speaking and that proposed activities, along with evidence of actual activities, should be considered. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, there is no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to re-examine the comparability of M/s. Datamatics Global Services Ltd. and to consider foreign exchange gains/losses as operating in nature if related to the current year's turnover. Certain comparable companies were excluded based on previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary after the VSVS proceedings reached finality.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for FTC in full for taxes paid in USA, Japan, and Germany, citing the Wipro Ltd. decision. For Korea and Taiwan, the FTC is limited to the lesser of the tax paid in those countries or the tax payable in India on the doubly taxed income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they ultimately opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received the necessary certificate. Since the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal, the Tribunal found no purpose in keeping it pending.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalidly initiated because the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was already a subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT, thus attracting the third proviso to Section 147. Consequently, the reassessment order was annulled.

The Tribunal held that the issue of profit determination for Section 80IA deduction had merged with the ITAT's earlier order. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not validly initiated due to the second proviso to Section 147.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient time to file documents before the AO and that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. The issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if circumstances warranted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary after the VSVS proceedings reached finality.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek recall if necessary.

The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to re-examine the comparability of M/s. Datamatics Global Services Ltd. and to consider foreign exchange gains/losses as operating in nature if related to the current year's turnover. Certain comparable companies were excluded based on previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case, emphasizing cooperation and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

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 necessary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Since the assessee is settling the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.