ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal held that additional evidence, including ledger extracts and an affidavit, was necessary to determine if there was an actual payment or merely a book entry. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request to pursue resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to move for recalling the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not proceeded with.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be admitted due to the delay and unrectified defects. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the same was accepted by the designated authority.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be admitted due to the delay and unrectified defects. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Act application. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that multiple residential units within a single building do not disqualify the property from being considered 'one residential house' for the purpose of Section 54F. The AO's reasoning for rejection was found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. It granted liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act failed.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad se Vishwas application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Both assessee and revenue appeals were withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was restored to the AO/TPO for de novo consideration. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the entire transfer pricing issue to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempted income during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The parties were granted liberty to recall the order if the settlement process was not pursued.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Both assessee and revenue appeals were withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Both assessee and revenue appeals were withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had prayed for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had prayed for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had prayed for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had prayed for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had prayed for withdrawal of their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Acropetal Technologies Ltd.'s engineering design services segment was not comparable to the assessee's ITES services. The services offered by Acropetal were considered high-end and sophisticated, unlike the assessee's services.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2017, rendered the proceedings initiated under that clause invalid. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO and the addition by the AO were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on the deposit was attributable to the business of banking and eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The deposit was made to maintain an overdraft limit and was not a liability or an amount due to members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) improperly deleted the addition without calling for a remand report from the AO, especially since the assessment was ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw one appeal as the demand was resolved. The remaining four appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee opted to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw one appeal as the demand was resolved. The remaining four appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee opted to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(ia) if there is a shortfall in TDS deduction due to a difference of opinion regarding the taxability or nature of the payment. The assessee had deducted TDS under a bona fide belief.

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

The Tribunal held that the payments were compensatory in nature, incurred for socio-economic development and to resume mining operations, and not for any offense or prohibited by law. Therefore, they were allowable as revenue expenditure.

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

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond 4 years was invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not demonstrate that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The reasons recorded by the AO were based on material already available during the original assessment.

The assessee, having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate, prayed for withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw one appeal as the demand was resolved. The remaining four appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee opted to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The assessee, having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained a certificate, prayed for withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.