ITAT Bangalore Judgments — April 2021

M/S VIJAYA BANK EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BANGALORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-10(1), BANGALORE

ITA 768/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2009-10Allowed

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.

M/S. VIRGO COMMUNICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 490/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2016-17Withdrawn

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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

M/S VIJAYA BANK EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BANGALORE vs ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 770/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

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.

M/S VIJAYA BANK EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,BANGALORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-10(1), BANGALORE

ITA 766/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2007-08Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs MR. SAJID SAMRAN, MANGALURU

ITA 90/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had quashed the assessment order passed under Section 153A in a similar case, holding it bad in law because the assessment had not abated and no new material was found during the search. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under Section 153A for AY 2010-11 was bad in law. Consequently, all other grounds regarding the merits of additions were considered academic and not requiring adjudication. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not made an admission of income at 10% as suggested by the Revenue. Instead, it directed the AO to estimate the income based on the average net profit declared by the assessee in the last three immediate Assessment Years (2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16) and recompute the income accordingly. Regarding additions for unaccounted purchases against receivables, the Tribunal held that once income is estimated, no further additions can be made, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Indwell Construction Vs. CIT. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1326/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2006-07Allowed

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.

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1328/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2012-13Allowed

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.

MR. SAJID SAMRAN,MANGALURU vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

ITA 69/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had quashed the assessment order passed under Section 153A in a similar case, holding it bad in law because the assessment had not abated and no new material was found during the search. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under Section 153A for AY 2010-11 was bad in law. Consequently, all other grounds regarding the merits of additions were considered academic and not requiring adjudication. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not made an admission of income at 10% as suggested by the Revenue. Instead, it directed the AO to estimate the income based on the average net profit declared by the assessee in the last three immediate Assessment Years (2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16) and recompute the income accordingly. Regarding additions for unaccounted purchases against receivables, the Tribunal held that once income is estimated, no further additions can be made, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Indwell Construction Vs. CIT. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGUM, PUTTUR

ITA 4/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had quashed the assessment order passed under Section 153A in a similar case, holding it bad in law because the assessment had not abated and no new material was found during the search. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under Section 153A for AY 2010-11 was bad in law. Consequently, all other grounds regarding the merits of additions were considered academic and not requiring adjudication. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not made an admission of income at 10% as suggested by the Revenue. Instead, it directed the AO to estimate the income based on the average net profit declared by the assessee in the last three immediate Assessment Years (2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16) and recompute the income accordingly. Regarding additions for unaccounted purchases against receivables, the Tribunal held that once income is estimated, no further additions can be made, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Indwell Construction Vs. CIT. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1325/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2021AY 2005-06Allowed

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.