ITAT Bangalore Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal held that the expression 'members' in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) should be construed in light of the concerned cooperative societies act. It also remanded the issue of interest income from investments in cooperative societies for verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(c) has two distinct limbs: concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. It is incumbent upon the AO to clearly specify which limb the penalty is being levied for. A penalty order cannot be based on a ground different from the one for which proceedings were initiated, especially when the assessee has not been given notice of the alternative ground.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's method of determining ALP was flawed and not in accordance with statutory provisions. The issue of disallowance of reimbursement of expenses was also remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal, in addressing the issues, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., emphasizing the need to construe 'members' based on the concerned co-operative societies act. The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court, in the context of Section 80P(2)(a)(i), distinguished the facts of The Totgars Co-op Sale Society case, where the Supreme Court dealt with a society engaged in marketing agricultural produce. The Tribunal found that interest earned from statutory liquidity ratio deposits with co-operative societies is an incidental business activity. Regarding Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal acknowledged differing views from the Karnataka High Court, particularly concerning interest on deposits with co-operative societies. The Tribunal concluded that interest earned from investments made by the assessee with any co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify the interest earned from investments made in co-operative societies and consider the claim accordingly. The grounds related to Section 80P(2)(a)(i) were implicitly allowed for statistical purposes by remanding the related issue of interest income.

The Tribunal held that interest and dividend income earned from deposits with a co-operative bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as it's considered income from other sources. However, the issue regarding deduction for income from providing credit facilities to members under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies based on specific filters like related party transactions and business activities. The issue regarding marketing support services was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the completion of the residential property as per the requirements for capital gains exemption. The evidence presented was insufficient to counter the BBMP's official records and the AO's findings.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of year-end provisions, following a Karnataka High Court ruling. It also remanded certain comparables for fresh adjudication by the TPO based on FAR analysis.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had denied the exemption based on surmises without proper verification. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to verify the assessee's submissions and documents regarding the purchase of a new site for exemption under Section 54F.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of benchmarking the international transaction for brand royalty back to the AO/TPO for re-adjudication. It also directed the AO to compute deduction under Section 10AA in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Yokogawa India Ltd. The disallowance under Section 14A and MAT credit issues were also remanded to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 only to the extent of the proportionate amount invested in the purchase of the residential site and the amount invested in the construction of the property, as the balance was neither invested nor deposited as required. The delay in construction due to litigation was a factor, but not a complete waiver of the deposit requirement.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the time-bar issue, finding it to be a matter that goes to the root of the case. Consequently, the issue was remitted to the DRP for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the time-bar issue, finding it to be a matter that goes to the root of the case. Consequently, the issue was remitted to the DRP for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the time-bar issue, finding it to be a matter that goes to the root of the case. Consequently, the issue was remitted to the DRP for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO not to make negative working capital adjustment, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's case was similar to the cited decision regarding working capital risk.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow due process, rejected evidence without proper consideration, and passed a cryptic order. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the issue of interest earned from investments in co-operative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify and allow deductions for interest earned from investments made in co-operative societies.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of two comparable companies based on turnover criteria and held that no negative working capital adjustment was necessary for a captive service provider. The issue of interest on receivables was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the comparable companies selected by the TPO were not appropriate as they were engaged in different activities. It directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the transfer pricing issue by considering companies engaged in the specific business of gherkins processing and export.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable because the AO failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, making the show cause notice vague. This was in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing the appeal further. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd held that software sales do not constitute royalty. However, since the lower authorities and the assessee had not examined the specific agreements, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses and database access are not necessarily royalty under DTAA provisions and require re-examination. Similarly, consulting, legal, and other professional fees also need re-examination in light of applicable DTAA provisions.

The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses and database access are not necessarily royalty under DTAA provisions and require re-examination. Similarly, consulting, legal, and other professional fees also need re-examination in light of applicable DTAA provisions.

The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses and database access are not necessarily royalty under DTAA provisions and require re-examination. Similarly, consulting, legal, and other professional fees also need re-examination in light of applicable DTAA provisions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses and database access are not necessarily royalty under DTAA provisions and require re-examination. Similarly, consulting, legal, and other professional fees also need re-examination in light of applicable DTAA provisions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that the classification of payments for software and database access as royalty needs re-examination in light of DTAA provisions. Payments for consulting, legal, professional, training, certification, and sub-contracting also require re-examination considering DTAA provisions for Fees for Technical Services.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal held that the classification of payments for software and database access as royalty needs re-examination in light of DTAA provisions. Payments for consulting, legal, professional, training, certification, and sub-contracting also require re-examination considering DTAA provisions for Fees for Technical Services.

The Tribunal restored the Section 80IA deduction issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, dismissed the appeal regarding interest received on refund, and rejected the claim for deduction of interest paid under Section 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that the classification of payments for software and database access as royalty needs re-examination in light of DTAA provisions. Payments for consulting, legal, professional, training, certification, and sub-contracting also require re-examination considering DTAA provisions for Fees for Technical Services.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.

The Tribunal restored the Section 80IA deduction issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, dismissed the appeal regarding interest received on refund, and rejected the claim for deduction of interest paid under Section 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that the NCLT order and its implications on the income tax dues, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, needed to be examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the NCLT order and its implications on the income tax dues, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, needed to be examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the classification of payments for software and database access as royalty needs re-examination in light of DTAA provisions. Payments for consulting, legal, professional, training, certification, and sub-contracting also require re-examination considering DTAA provisions for Fees for Technical Services.

The tribunal directed the exclusion of E-Zest Solutions Limited and Softsol India Limited from the list of comparables, citing functional dissimilarity and related party transactions respectively. It also held that additions agreed under MAP proceedings are eligible for Section 10A deduction, following its own prior ruling.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments for software, database access, and related services constitute royalty needs re-examination in light of applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). It also directed re-examination of consulting, legal, and professional fees.