ITAT Bangalore Judgments — December 2021

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal held that license renewal fees and annual fees for product registration are recurring in nature and thus allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). The disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's submission that the orders were not served and the delay was due to a former tax professional. The issue of levying fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was remitted to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that license renewal fees and annual fees for product registration are recurring in nature and thus allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). The disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal held that license renewal fees and annual fees for product registration are recurring in nature and thus allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). The disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal held that license renewal fees and annual fees for product registration are recurring in nature and thus allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). The disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the TPO was time-barred and therefore null and void. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment arising from this order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee did not make available any technical knowledge, expertise, or skill to the Indian subsidiary, as required by the India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS in India.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of intimations and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The issue of levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was remitted to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is impermissible, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of orders and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'.

The Tribunal held that the issue of two PAN numbers and the claim for exemption on building fund require fresh examination by the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the surrender of the new PAN, regularize the returns, and ensure no double assessment of income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, as the law at the time only required furnishing of PAN for exemption from TDS on payments to transport contractors. Therefore, the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (creditor confirmations) as there was a reasonable cause for not producing them before the AO. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the improvements were not purely temporary erections. However, it noted that the issue of whether the expenditure was capital or revenue in nature was not examined by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 56(2)(viib) additions to the AO for examination of the assessee's claim of being a 'Startup company'. For the R&D expenditure, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation on the capitalized amount.

The Tribunal held that payments made to NPCI for ATM charges are not covered under Section 194J as technical services, following Supreme Court and co-ordinate bench decisions. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on HTM securities, following previous ITAT and High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that pure reimbursement does not give rise to income and that the revenue authorities had not established a one-to-one tally of expenses incurred and reimbursed. It also noted the lack of findings on the 'make available' clause for FTS. The Tribunal directed the issue of reimbursements to be remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) as the assessee failed to demonstrate that no such expenses were incurred for managing investments. However, regarding interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 56(2)(viib) additions to the AO for examination of the assessee's claim of being a 'Startup company'. For the R&D expenditure, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation on the capitalized amount.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return due to old age and the absence of an assistant. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271F was cancelled.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) as the assessee failed to demonstrate that no such expenses were incurred for managing investments. However, regarding interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that payments made to NPCI for ATM charges are not covered under Section 194J as technical services, following Supreme Court and co-ordinate bench decisions. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on HTM securities, following previous ITAT and High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) as the assessee failed to demonstrate that no such expenses were incurred for managing investments. However, regarding interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) as the assessee failed to demonstrate that no such expenses were incurred for managing investments. However, regarding interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(TDS) under Section 263 was bad in law because it sought to revise an order that had already been set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) as the assessee failed to demonstrate that no such expenses were incurred for managing investments. However, regarding interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2019-20. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee is entitled to deduction if payments were made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material related to the assessment years in question was found, the CIT(A)'s decision to grant the exemption under Section 11 was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts to the extent debited to the Profit and Loss account. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). However, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding corporate management services and restored the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh examination. For the Section 10AA deduction, the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the write-off of bad debts by the bank was correctly reflected in the balance sheet and was allowable. Regarding Section 14A, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was confirmed as per the CIT(A)'s decision. The deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was allowed as per a co-ordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of M/s. Capgemini Business Services from the list of comparables due to significant differences in RPT percentage and functional dissimilarity. It also found merit in the exclusion of M/s. Infosys BPO Ltd. based on functional dissimilarity, brand value, and turnover.

The Tribunal held that Section 153C proceedings are not applicable when the search is conducted in the assessee's own premises and no incriminating material belonging to the assessee is found. Furthermore, the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 271AAB as the assessee was not subjected to a search under Section 132.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of passing a draft assessment order along with a demand notice and penalty proceedings was contrary to the prescribed procedure under Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that club membership fees incurred for business promotion and entertaining customers are allowable business expenditure. The personal benefit to directors is incidental and not the primary object of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in AY 2006-07 was not on account of closing stock valuation but due to a difference between the original and revised returns. Therefore, the assessee could not adjust this amount in the current assessment year.