ITAT Bangalore Judgments — August 2021

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 dismissed the revenue's ground regarding CSR expenses, following a coordinate bench's decision. However, it allowed the revenue's ground on leave salary provisions, directing the AO to compute disallowance on an unpaid basis as per Supreme Court ruling. The assessee's claim for Section 35AD deduction was remanded to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was cryptic and lacked proper application of mind, failing to provide a speaking order on the assessee's arguments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred out of government grants is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court judgment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow appropriate MAT credit and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred out of government grants is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court judgment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow appropriate MAT credit and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred out of government grants is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court judgment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow appropriate MAT credit and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred out of government grants is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court judgment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow appropriate MAT credit and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society, registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, is not a co-operative society for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had admitted a large number of nominal/associate members and provided credit facilities to them, violating the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred out of government grants is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court judgment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow appropriate MAT credit and TDS credit.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filing the necessary applications.

The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred out of government grants is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court judgment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow appropriate MAT credit and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that R&D expenditure incurred out of government grants is eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court judgment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow appropriate MAT credit and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive assessments were settled, the protective assessments would automatically stand deleted. The appeals were disposed of as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the AO to reconsider the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) after examining the Chartered Accountant's certificate confirming the recipient included the income and paid taxes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's view was incorrect. The disallowance in the prior year was accepted by the AO under Section 40(a), and the subsequent claim in the current year was also in accordance with the Act. The Tribunal also found that the AO had applied his mind to the issue of foreign employee expenses, making the CIT's revision order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without considering the DVO's report, which indicated a higher valuation. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking Section 263 powers.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed deduction for leave encashment actually paid, remitting the issue to the AO for verification. It also upheld the assessee's claim for deduction of education cess, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that expenses reduced from export turnover should also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10AA deduction, following Supreme Court precedent. It also ruled that the AO must examine the assessee's working for Section 14A disallowance before resorting to Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) adopted the value of the property at Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. based on letters from the Gram Panchayat/Village Accountant, which were not confronted to the Assessing Officer. This action was considered a violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to consider these documents and decide the issue afresh, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal refrained from going into the other grounds of appeal as the entire issue was remitted back to the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without considering the DVO's report, which indicated a higher valuation. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking Section 263 powers.

The Tribunal held that the TDS claim required further verification of TDS certificates by the Assessing Officer and remanded the issue. The claim for service tax written off as bad debt was allowed, as the assessee had paid the tax and it was irrecoverable from the customer.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee might not be liable for TDS on software imports based on Supreme Court rulings, the issue of whether TDS was actually deducted and credited to the foreign company needed verification. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to determine this fact.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of treating income from off-the-shelf software sales as royalty was covered by Supreme Court judgments. However, it observed that the agreements were not examined by lower authorities or the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee might not be liable for TDS on software imports based on Supreme Court rulings, the issue of whether TDS was actually deducted and credited to the foreign company needed verification. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to determine this fact.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without considering the DVO's report, which indicated a higher valuation. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking Section 263 powers.