ITAT Bangalore Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal held that the community welfare expenses incurred by the assessee were for business promotion and to gain goodwill of the local community. It was also noted that the restriction under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) regarding CSR applies only to companies and not to individuals.

The Tribunal held that an inadvertent omission or ignorance in filling the return should not disentitle the assessee from claiming an otherwise allowable exemption. Technical errors should not deny a taxpayer their rightful claim.

The Tribunal noted that in a previous year, the Tribunal had denied exemption, but the appeal was pending before the High Court. The Tribunal found that the earlier order overlooked certain clauses of the Memorandum of Association. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted.

The Tribunal noted a difference in the figure used by the Assessing Officer (AO) for income computation. It directed the assessee to provide all relevant details to the AO, who was instructed to verify them and dispose of the pending rectification petition. The ground raised was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reconsider the risk adjustment based on the provided quantification basis. The issue regarding the operating margin of Cyber Media Research Limited was remitted to the AO/TPO for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that while the corporate guarantee is an international transaction, the 2% fee imputed by the AO/TPO was not justified. Following precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to make the adjustment at 0.50%.

The Tribunal held that while the corporate guarantee is an international transaction, the 2% fee imputed by the AO/TPO was not justified. Following precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to make the adjustment at 0.50%.

The Tribunal held that while the corporate guarantee is an international transaction, the 2% fee imputed by the AO/TPO was not justified. Following precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to make the adjustment at 0.50%.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's directions, relying on jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court judgments. It ruled that interest income is eligible for Section 10A deduction and that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for parity. Foreign exchange gains/losses were also held to be operating in nature based on previous Tribunal orders.

The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, fit the definition of 'co-operative society' under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, fit the definition of 'co-operative society' under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80P.

The Tribunal found that the actual utilization of the land was not examined. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for necessary inquiry to determine if the land was kept idle or used for agricultural operations.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The CBDT circular regarding monetary limits applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the contributions to various funds were statutory obligations and incurred for the business purposes of the assessee, thus allowable as deductions. Similarly, financial assistance to member banks was also considered an allowable business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the contributions to various funds were statutory obligations and incurred for the business purposes of the assessee, thus allowable as deductions. Similarly, financial assistance to member banks was also considered an allowable business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the contributions to various funds were statutory obligations and incurred for the business purposes of the assessee, thus allowable as deductions. Similarly, financial assistance to member banks was also considered an allowable business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the contributions to various funds were statutory obligations and incurred for the business purposes of the assessee, thus allowable as deductions. Similarly, financial assistance to member banks was also considered an allowable business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the contributions to various funds were statutory obligations and incurred for the business purposes of the assessee, thus allowable as deductions. Similarly, financial assistance to member banks was also considered an allowable business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the period of holding of a capital asset is to be computed from the date of allotment or the date of agreement for sale, whichever is earlier, if substantial rights in the property have accrued. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had made substantial payments towards the cost of acquisition before the sale.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of Evoke Technologies Ltd. and Thinksoft Global Ltd. in the list of comparables, finding them functionally similar and meeting the necessary filters. It also allowed the assessee's ground against negative working capital adjustment, citing previous rulings for captive service providers.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary applications. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeal pending.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the source of cash deposits and the identity of parties for cheque deposits. The AO was within his jurisdiction to examine cheque deposits even in a limited scrutiny case, as per CBDT circulars.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS on year-end provisions due to the unquantifiable nature of the expenses. Following its own previous decision and considering the voluntary disallowance, payment of interest, and subsequent TDS deduction, the penalty under Section 271C was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the rectification application without granting a hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that 'other income' and unbilled revenue needed to be remanded to the AO for verification and consideration in accordance with law. Regarding foreign exchange gains, the AO was directed to compute the deduction in line with the Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the buyer provided sufficient explanation for the payment to the confirming party. However, the Tribunal cautioned against taxing income based on surmises and conjectures.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw pending appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw pending appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following a previous order of the same bench, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to decide the issue in light of relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, even if inconsistent. Therefore, the higher rate of tax under Section 206AA was not applicable in this case.

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, acknowledging the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P should be allowed for income from both regular and associate members, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on this point. Issues regarding pigmy commission and audit fees were remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the factory building is taxable under the head 'income from house property' as the letting of the property and equipment are separable. The assessee is considered the owner of the property for taxation purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without proper appreciation of evidence and without confronting the assessee's submissions to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without proper appreciation of evidence and without confronting the assessee's submissions to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for sub-leased rental income against lease rent paid is admissible, subject to verification by the AO. It also held that communication, insurance, and foreign currency expenses should be excluded from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that issuing a demand and penalty notice along with a draft assessment order is contrary to the mandatory procedures laid down in Section 144C of the Act. Such an order is considered null and void.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the factory building is taxable under the head 'income from house property' as the letting of the property and equipment are separable. The assessee is considered the owner of the property for taxation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid to members was compensatory for the delay in site allotment and was directly linked to the interest income earned from depositing member advances. Therefore, it was an allowable deduction.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid to members was compensatory for the delay in site allotment and was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income. Therefore, it was deductible.

The Tribunal has issued a corrigendum to correct factual errors in its previous order. The assessment year, appellant's PAN, and an address detail have been amended.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid to members was compensatory for the delay in site allotment and was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income. Therefore, it was deductible.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid to members was compensatory for the delay in site allotment and was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income. Therefore, it was deductible.