ITAT Bangalore Judgments — December 2021

The Tribunal held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is prospective in nature. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the disallowance of employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's explanation regarding his Chartered Accountant's failure to file the appeal on time. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for dealing with associate/nominal members was against the Apex Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank. The issue of interest income from co-operative banks was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the matter needs to be considered afresh by the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claim under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) in light of various judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal have been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, particularly for interest income from investments made in compliance with co-operative society rules, requires fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal held that Section 50 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the asset was a vacant land on which no depreciation was claimed or allowed. Therefore, it cannot be considered part of a block of depreciable assets.

The Tribunal held that when the assessee fails to make a suo motu disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the AO is at liberty to invoke these provisions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the action of the lower authorities and confirmed the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that a revised return under Section 139(5) can only be filed against an original return under Section 139(1) or in response to a notice under Section 142(1). Since the assessee filed a belated return under Section 139(4) initially, the subsequent revised return was invalid. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 143(2) based on an invalid return was also invalid, rendering the assessment order non-est.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. held that payments for software use are not royalty. However, due to the AO and CIT(A) not having the benefit of this decision, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the agreement terms in light of the DTAA.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. held that payments for software use are not royalty. However, due to the AO and CIT(A) not having the benefit of this decision, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the agreement terms in light of the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the addition made for the assessment year 2019-20, where payments were made before the due date for filing the return, is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reason cited by the Revenue for the delay, i.e., inadvertent mistake on the part of the AO, was not a credible reason. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the reason cited by the Revenue for the delay, i.e., inadvertent mistake on the part of the AO, was not a credible reason. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, particularly for interest income from investments made in compliance with co-operative society rules, requires fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return is an allowable deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. held that payments for software use are not royalty. However, due to the AO and CIT(A) not having the benefit of this decision, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the agreement terms in light of the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of 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 not retrospective in nature.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. held that payments for software use are not royalty. However, due to the AO and CIT(A) not having the benefit of this decision, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the agreement terms in light of the DTAA.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. held that payments for software use are not royalty. However, due to the AO and CIT(A) not having the benefit of this decision, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the agreement terms in light of the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was deemed not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the addition made by the AO for the assessment year 2014-15 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the employee's contribution paid before the due date for filing the return of income is deductible.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal found an error in the AO's computation. If rectified, the tax effect would be less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT circulars, the Revenue is precluded from pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction if the employee's contribution is paid before the due date for filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the reason cited by the Revenue for the delay, i.e., inadvertent mistake on the part of the AO, was not a credible reason. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that interest income from investments in cooperative banks is to be assessed as income from other sources, not business. It further held that expenses incurred for earning such interest income should be allowed as a deduction under Section 57. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) was correctly allowed by the AO up to the limit.

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue of splitting up or reconstruction was already considered and decided in favor of the assessee in earlier assessment years. Since there was no change in facts and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary, the denial of deduction for the years under consideration was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the issue of splitting up or reconstruction was already considered and decided in favor of the assessee in earlier assessment years. Since there was no change in facts and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary, the denial of deduction for the years under consideration was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reason cited by the Revenue for the delay, i.e., inadvertent mistake on the part of the AO, was not a credible reason. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revision proceedings. The AO had taken a plausible view by accepting the assessee's offer of gross profit on unaccounted sales, and the seized materials did not clearly indicate unaccounted purchases as presumed by the PCIT. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be termed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the addition made for the assessment year 2018-19 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction as the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021 were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revision proceedings. The AO had taken a plausible view by accepting the assessee's offer of gross profit on unaccounted sales, and the seized materials did not clearly indicate unaccounted purchases as presumed by the PCIT. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be termed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to foreign agents was for procuring sales orders and not for technical services, thus no tax deduction at source was required. The disallowance of commission was deleted. For AY 2010-11, the disallowance of software purchase expenses was upheld due to lack of details.

The Tribunal held that the receipt from the company was salary income, not professional income, as the assessee failed to prove the nature of professional services rendered. The interest expenditure was also disallowed due to lack of nexus with the income received.

The Tribunal held that the receipt from the company was salary income, not professional income, as the assessee failed to prove the nature of professional services rendered. The interest expenditure was also disallowed due to lack of nexus with the income received.

The Tribunal held that the receipt from the company was salary income, not professional income, as the assessee failed to prove the nature of professional services rendered. The interest expenditure was also disallowed due to lack of nexus with the income received.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revision proceedings. The AO had taken a plausible view by accepting the assessee's offer of gross profit on unaccounted sales, and the seized materials did not clearly indicate unaccounted purchases as presumed by the PCIT. Therefore, the assessment orders could not be termed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to foreign agents was for procuring sales orders and not for technical services, thus no tax deduction at source was required. The disallowance of commission was deleted. For AY 2010-11, the disallowance of software purchase expenses was upheld due to lack of details.

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to foreign agents was for procuring sales orders and not for technical services, thus no tax deduction at source was required. The disallowance of commission was deleted. For AY 2010-11, the disallowance of software purchase expenses was upheld due to lack of details.

The tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) issued on the original return is valid even after filing a revised return, following precedent. It further held that the compensation paid for mining and dumping material outside the leased area is allowable as revenue expenditure.

The tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) issued on the original return is valid even after filing a revised return, following precedent. It further held that the compensation paid for mining and dumping material outside the leased area is allowable as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the JDA granted only permissive possession for development, not legal possession as required under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable.

The tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) issued on the original return is valid even after filing a revised return, following precedent. It further held that the compensation paid for mining and dumping material outside the leased area is allowable as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement granted only permissive possession and not legal possession as contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable, and the capital gains assessment was deleted.