ITAT Bangalore Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that gratuity received on death of an employee is covered under Section 10(10)(iii) with a limit of Rs. 3,50,000. For leave encashment, the exemption limit is Rs. 3 lakhs as per the relevant notification.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were untenable. It directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 4,14,72,998/-, considering the assessee's prayer for telescoping the deficit stock against previously surrendered income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the comparability of certain companies as comparables needs further examination and remanded the issue to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's decision regarding the computation of profit margins and the rejection of risk adjustment due to lack of quantification.

The Tribunal held that an eligible relief under the Income Tax Act cannot be denied due to inadvertent mistakes or procedural defaults. The issue of exemption requires fresh examination by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC for delayed filing of Form 67. It further held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement and that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override domestic law provisions.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions and a Karnataka High Court judgment, held that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are indeed co-operative societies eligible for Section 80P deduction. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that for a block of assets, it is not necessary for every individual asset within the block to be put to use simultaneously to claim depreciation. If one asset in the block is used for business purposes, depreciation is allowable on the entire block.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on investment portfolio, if treated as a write-off and not a provision for diminution in value, should not be added back to book profit. Similarly, provisions for NPA, if reduced from the assets side of the balance sheet, are to be treated as write-offs and not added back. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that as the assessee is a resident, his global income, including salary earned outside India, is taxable in India as per Section 5(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. However, the issues regarding foreign tax credit, deductions under Chapter VIA, and interest under Sections 234B and 234C were restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have been overly technical and should have allowed the assessees to rectify the appeal form by mentioning the correct PAN. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB, as it pertains to normal income computation. The Tribunal also restored the assessee's grounds regarding additions made beyond the scope of the original assessment and appellate order to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have been overly technical and should have allowed the assessees to rectify the appeal form by mentioning the correct PAN. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have been overly technical and should have allowed the assessees to rectify the appeal form by mentioning the correct PAN. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have been overly technical and should have allowed the assessees to rectify the appeal form by mentioning the correct PAN. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that companies with significantly higher turnovers than the assessee should be excluded from the comparable list. It also upheld the exclusion of companies with functional dissimilarity and confirmed that no negative working capital adjustment was appropriate for a captive service provider operating on a cost-plus basis.

The Tribunal held that the quantum of disallowance under Section 14A is a debatable issue and cannot be rectified under Section 154. Furthermore, disallowances made under Section 14A cannot be added while computing book profits under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, and it is not necessary to establish that the debt has actually become bad. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, and it is not necessary to establish that the debt has actually become bad. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). The amendments made by the Finance Act 2021, which aimed to disallow such delayed payments, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's transfer pricing analysis was based on an erroneous understanding of the assessee's business model, similar to a previous assessment year. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment was set aside for de novo consideration by the AO/TPO. The issue of deduction u/s 10AA was directed to be computed on assessed income, following jurisdictional High Court precedent.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the dispute settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not successful.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the dispute settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not successful.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the dispute settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not successful.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for such computation was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for such computation was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, though containing information about the assessee, did not 'belong to' him, thus Section 153C was not applicable. However, certain additions were deleted as they were either made in the individual capacity when they pertained to a firm or were imprest amounts spent on behalf of other entities.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, though containing information about the assessee, did not 'belong to' him, thus Section 153C was not applicable. However, certain additions were deleted as they were either made in the individual capacity when they pertained to a firm or were imprest amounts spent on behalf of other entities.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, though containing information about the assessee, did not 'belong to' him, thus Section 153C was not applicable. However, certain additions were deleted as they were either made in the individual capacity when they pertained to a firm or were imprest amounts spent on behalf of other entities.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, though containing information about the assessee, did not 'belong to' him, thus Section 153C was not applicable. However, certain additions were deleted as they were either made in the individual capacity when they pertained to a firm or were imprest amounts spent on behalf of other entities.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka's decision, which stated that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for the computation of Section 234E fees was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, which is binding.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude comparable companies like Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. based on factors like brand value, diversified services, and lack of segmental data. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide supporting documents for its new stand. The Tribunal noted the assessee's responsibility to prove the genuineness of transactions.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, which is binding.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, which is binding on the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for such computation was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for such computation was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for such computation was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for such computation was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, was not valid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 200A allowing for such computation was prospective.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding education cess, directing it to be considered as a deduction. For the interest income issue under Sections 10AA and 10B, the Tribunal remanded it to the AO for verification of nexus with eligible undertakings.

The Tribunal held that receipts from the sale of hardware with embedded software are not royalty, as they represent business profits. It also ruled that certain reimbursements were not fees for technical services due to lack of evidence of 'make available' clause fulfillment.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing him to provide the assessee with all documents relied upon by the Revenue and grant an opportunity for rebuttal and cross-examination. This was based on previous ITAT Bangalore decisions on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) is not applicable to unsecured loans as they do not represent a trading liability for which an allowance or deduction was previously granted. The disallowance of depreciation and interest on car loans was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary evidence.