ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the unpaid service tax was claimed as a deduction. If not claimed, Section 43B would not be invoked, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that payments for the purchase of shrink-wrapped software are not royalty for the use of copyright, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance was deleted.

The tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had all the necessary information during the original assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and no new material justified the reopening.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had all the necessary information during the original assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and no new material justified the reopening.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had all the necessary information during the original assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and no new material justified the reopening.

The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that for the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the loan must be advanced to a registered shareholder. Since the assessee firm was not a registered shareholder of the lending company, the loan could not be treated as deemed dividend. The Tribunal relied on various High Court judgments supporting this interpretation.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on unsubstantiated diary jottings and a retracted statement obtained under duress, without proper corroboration or compliance with evidence laws. The assessee was denied cross-examination and access to crucial seized material.

The Tribunal held that the lease transaction, even if the deed was unregistered, was a valid transfer of right to enjoy property. Since the assessee consistently accounted for lease rentals on a proportionate basis, the authorities were not justified in disturbing this method.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had all the necessary information during the original assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and no new material justified the reopening.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for interest earned from members to the AO for re-examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The issue of interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks was also restored to the AO for de novo consideration, following a coordinate bench's order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly verified if the transactions constituted a genuine running current account for business purposes. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further verification.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income. It also found that a disallowance related to work-in-progress valuation was excessive and constituted a double disallowance, leading to its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/18. The Revenue could not demonstrate any exceptions to this circular.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had established a new undertaking for power generation, not merely an expansion of an existing one. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IA was allowable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence. The CIT(A) is to conduct necessary verification and consider the claim in accordance with law.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the exclusion of a comparable company. It also allowed the assessee's ground for recomputing the working capital adjustment. However, it dismissed the ground related to the exclusion of a specific company by the DRP, finding it functionally dissimilar.

The Tribunal held that the amount written off by M/s. ILC Industries Ltd. constituted a trade surplus and taxable income for the assessee, as it was received in the course of business and remained unclaimed. The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B on this enhanced income was rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to reconsider the comparability analysis for certain companies and to verify the trade receivables against the agreed credit period. If receivables fall beyond the period and are not subsumed in working capital adjustments, the adjustment will be restricted.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's method of income recognition nor the AO's estimation method was in accordance with recognized accounting standards. Consequently, the issue of computing the assessee's income was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration using approved methods.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee. This dismissal was based on the assessee's decision to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee. This dismissal was based on the assessee's decision to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee. This dismissal was based on the assessee's decision to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee. This dismissal was based on the assessee's decision to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee. This dismissal was based on the assessee's decision to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee. This dismissal was based on the assessee's decision to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence, referencing Supreme Court and CBDT guidelines. It also found that the notice u/s. 148 was issued without proper approval and in some cases without the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2), rendering the assessment bad in law.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the valuation report was made significantly later than the property purchase, and property values had risen steeply. It also noted that the state authorities accepted the assessee's declared valuation at the time of registration.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the valuation report was made significantly later than the property purchase, and property values had risen steeply. It also noted that the state authorities accepted the assessee's declared valuation at the time of registration.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence, referencing Supreme Court and CBDT guidelines. It also found that the notice for reopening was issued without proper approval, rendering the assessment bad in law.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the valuation report was made significantly later than the property purchase, and property values had risen steeply. It also noted that the state authorities accepted the assessee's declared valuation at the time of registration.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of comparable companies for software development and marketing/sales support services back to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration. The issue of notional interest on outstanding receivables was also set aside and remitted to the AO/TPO for a decision in conformity with judicial precedents, considering working capital adjustments. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded to the AO for verification of TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSV Scheme and filed the necessary forms. Since the issues were settled under the Act, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence, referencing Supreme Court and CBDT pronouncements. It also found that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper approval, rendering the assessment bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 161 days, considering the reasons provided by the assessee as sufficient cause. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence, referencing Supreme Court and CBDT pronouncements. It also found that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper approval, rendering the assessment bad in law.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence, referencing Supreme Court and CBDT pronouncements. It also found that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper approval, rendering the assessment bad in law.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the bad debt claim for AY 2013-14, finding that the assessee failed to establish business compulsion to write off the loan as of March 31, 2013. However, it directed that the claim should be examined in AY 2015-16, as the loan had indeed become bad.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to a mark-up on the expenses incurred, as the transaction represented a service provided by the assessee to its AE. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to compute capital gains on the sale of trees by considering the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to a mark-up on the expenses incurred, as the transaction represented a service provided by the assessee to its AE. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to compute capital gains on the sale of trees by considering the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

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

The Tribunal found merit in the assessees' argument that the valuation report was made long after the property purchase and that property registration authorities accepted the declared values. Therefore, the addition based on the difference between the declared value and the later valuation report was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessees' argument that the valuation report was made long after the property purchase and that property registration authorities accepted the declared values. Therefore, the addition based on the difference between the declared value and the later valuation report was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to a mark-up on the expenses incurred, as the transaction represented a service provided by the assessee to its AE. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to compute capital gains on the sale of trees by considering the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and their request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the valuation report was made long after the property purchase, and property values had significantly increased. The Tribunal also noted that the state authorities accepted the assessee's declared valuation at the time of registration.