ITAT Bangalore Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal held that sale of software does not constitute royalty and miscellaneous receipts related to software sales cannot be taxed as fees for technical services, following a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to prove that the sales promotion expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Tribunal found no documentary evidence to support the claim of employees attending the event or the nexus of the expenses with business activities.

The Tribunal found the CIT(Exemption)'s order to be cryptic and lacking proper reasoning. It held that the application required a fresh examination by the CIT(Exemption) after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. overruled the Karnataka High Court's decision relied upon by the revenue authorities. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to examine the agreement in light of the DTAA and the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the APA's provisions, including the 60-day realization period for receivables, should apply to the assessment year under review due to the rollback provision. For software expenses, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify invoices and allow expenses if the license period was less than one year, as per DRP directions.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. overruled the Karnataka High Court's decision relied upon by the revenue authorities. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to examine the agreement in light of the DTAA and the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal due to the MAP resolution. Consequently, the revenue's appeal, which also pertained to transfer pricing, was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of Section 10A deduction was not sustained, thus no penalty could be levied on that issue. For the second issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed the transactions and acted under a bonafide belief, and that mere making of a claim not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal due to the MAP resolution. Consequently, the revenue's appeal, which also pertained to transfer pricing, was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that if prior period income is offered to tax, then the corresponding prior period expenses should be allowed as a set-off. The disallowance of prior period expenses alone was contradictory.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee. The orders of the lower authorities on the issue of repairs and maintenance expenditure were set aside and remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO was directed to consider whether the interest income was derived from statutorily required investments and to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the repair expenses incurred on a leased property for improving the working environment were revenue in nature and directed the AO to delete the disallowance. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding the donation, finding it to be a general donation not eligible for deduction under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of Crystal Voxx Limited as a comparable company, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts. It also held that negative working capital adjustment is not required for a capital service provider funded by its AEs.

The Tribunal held that the issue of software sale receipts being royalty needed to be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre. However, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s order regarding the foreign exchange difference, stating that the actual date of remittance should be used for valuation, not the balance sheet date.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that software engineers are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if they don't perform supervisory functions. The 300-day employment period can be considered across the previous and succeeding years for the deduction. The deduction under Section 80JJA is allowable.

The Tribunal held that software engineers are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if they don't perform supervisory functions. The 300-day employment period can be considered across the previous and succeeding years for the deduction. The deduction under Section 80JJA is allowable.

The Tribunal held that software engineers are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if they don't perform supervisory functions. The 300-day employment period can be considered across the previous and succeeding years for the deduction. The deduction under Section 80JJA is allowable.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the issues were settled under the VSV Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT held that an order passed against a deceased person is non-est in the eyes of law. Proceedings can only continue against the legal representative as per Section 159 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the issues were settled under the VSV Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the issue of Section 80JJAA deduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim to exclude interest on vehicle loans from the disallowance calculation.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for the sale of software with associated hardware does not constitute royalty income taxable in India. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no obligation to deduct TDS.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that outstanding trade creditors cannot be added under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act when the purchases have been accepted as genuine and payments have been made through banking channels. The AO's inability to get confirmations from creditors does not automatically make the liability bogus, especially when the assessee has demonstrated payments.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, for the tax arrears related to these appeals. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the issues were settled under the VSV scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the issues were settled under the VSV Scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal clarified that the assessment years for the appeals ITA Nos.2894 & 2895/Bang/2017 are 2010-11 & 2011-12, correcting a typographical error.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to Section 54F exemption even if the sale consideration was not deposited in the capital gains account scheme, provided it was invested in acquiring or constructing a new residential house. The Tribunal also noted that investment in a property owned by the spouse would not disentitle the claim if there's a direct nexus.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee who intended to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that software engineers are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act if they don't perform supervisory functions. The 300-day employment period can be considered across the previous and succeeding years for the deduction. The deduction under Section 80JJA is allowable.

The Tribunal clarified that the assessment years for the appeals ITA Nos.2894 & 2895/Bang/2017 are 2010-11 & 2011-12, correcting a typographical error.

The Tribunal restored the issues regarding deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) to the AO for fresh examination. For 80P(2)(d), it directed that proportionate expenses should be allowed if the interest income is taxed under 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the AO for fresh examination in light of recent Supreme Court judgments. For Section 80P(2)(d), it directed the AO to allow proportionate expenses if interest income is taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal directed the AO to consider software expenses as revenue expenditure based on admitted invoices. It also allowed foreign tax credit and directed exclusion of certain expenses from turnover for Section 10AA deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee who intended to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The ITAT amended its previous order, holding that software purchase payments do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) and the DTAA. Consequently, there is no liability for TDS under Section 195 on such payments.