ITAT Bangalore Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not rendered findings on the issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of whether the property belonged to the HUF and if the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's letter opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn by the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary applications. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received the required form. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while provisions for medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance were contingent, the actual expenses incurred and debited to these provisions during the year should be allowed as deduction. The disallowance of payment to BATF was deleted, but the disallowance for Bhagyalakshmi Yojana was confirmed. The issue regarding contribution to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.' and 'ICC International Agencies Limited' from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarity. The issue of working capital adjustment was remitted to the AO/TPO.

The Tribunal held that offering non-taxable income in the return constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, which can be rectified. The appeals were restored to the AO for examination of the rectification petitions.

The Tribunal held that offering non-taxable income in the return constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, which can be rectified. The appeals were restored to the AO for examination of the rectification petitions.

The Tribunal held that offering non-taxable income in the return constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, which can be rectified. The appeals were restored to the AO for examination of the rectification petitions.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.' and 'ICC International Agencies Limited' from the list of comparables due to functional dissimilarity. The issue of working capital adjustment was remitted to the AO/TPO.

The Tribunal held that the absence of commenced charitable activities is not a valid ground for rejecting an application for Section 80G recognition, especially when the trust has already obtained registration under Section 12AA. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that while provisions for medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance were contingent, the actual expenses incurred and debited to these provisions during the year should be allowed as deduction. The disallowance of payment to BATF was deleted, but the disallowance for Bhagyalakshmi Yojana was confirmed. The issue regarding contribution to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that while provisions for medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance were contingent, the actual expenses incurred and debited to these provisions during the year should be allowed as deduction. The disallowance of payment to BATF was deleted, but the disallowance for Bhagyalakshmi Yojana was confirmed. The issue regarding contribution to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks before April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for delayed filing was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks before April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for delayed filing was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks before April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for delayed filing was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks before April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for delayed filing was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks before April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for delayed filing was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the applicability of Rule 114E to co-operative banks before April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for delayed filing was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the inclusion of co-operative banks in Rule 114E prior to April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the ambiguity regarding the inclusion of co-operative banks in Rule 114E prior to April 1, 2016, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue of including 'Inteq Software Private Limited' and 'Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited' in the comparable list back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration. It also directed the inclusion of 'Kals Information Systems Limited', 'E-Zest Solutions Limited', and 'CG-VAK Software & Exports Limited' in the final list of comparables.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined crucial ingredients regarding the identification of goods sold and quantification of sale proceeds at the time of e-auction. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the time given to the assessee to furnish documents was very short. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the tax effect being below the threshold for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal found merit in the contentions of both parties and decided that the issue requires a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The order passed by the AO on this issue was set aside and restored to his file for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and had filed the necessary applications. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the land was a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, as it was held for a long period and there was no evidence of a business of buying and selling land. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for Section 54F exemption.

The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing adjustment issue to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of ALP, following a similar precedent. It also held that education cess is an allowable deduction, and depreciation on UPS is allowable at 60%.

The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing adjustment issue to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of ALP, following a similar precedent. It also held that education cess is an allowable deduction, and depreciation on UPS is allowable at 60%.