ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal held that education cess is an allowable deduction, even if not claimed in the original return, as appellate authorities have wide powers to consider such claims. The transfer pricing adjustments were contested on grounds of incorrect benchmarking and selection of comparables.

The tribunal reduced the disallowance on landscaping expenses, restored the issue of advance for landscaping works to the AO for fresh examination with additional evidence, and set aside the addition for cash deposits, remanding it to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of issuing a draft assessment order along with a demand notice and penalty proceedings was contrary to the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer (AO) to take an appropriate decision on the outstanding demand, considering the dissolution of the assessee company by the NCLT.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed without proper verification and that the assessee could not provide all necessary details in the given time. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s view on adjusting non-rural bad debts against provisions for rural bad debts was not legally correct and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal also restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the AO for fresh examination. The disallowance under Section 40A(ia) and the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) were upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that several companies previously excluded by the CIT(A) should be excluded from the comparable list due to functional dissimilarity or extraordinary events. However, it directed the inclusion of i-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. as a comparable.

The Tribunal is examining the assessee's Transfer Pricing Study which used the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) to justify the prices. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made significant adjustments to the prices for both SWD and ITeS services.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered an explanation and substantiated it with available materials, which was not proven false. Therefore, the explanation should be considered bonafide, and the penalty is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of exemption under Section 10(1) for income from seeds has been subject to extensive litigation, including appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court. Given the pending Supreme Court decision and the lack of specific details from the assessee, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 2,77,635 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal held that interest on delayed payment of service tax is compensatory and not penal, directing the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 13,08,004.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) determined the fair market value of the shares as per Rule 11UA. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to determine the FMV of shares by following prescribed methods.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment proceedings under section 153A, which are not based on incriminating material found during the search, are not sustainable. It also held that investments and expenditures in the name of the assessee's daughter, supported by her earnings, cannot be added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment proceedings under section 153A, which are not based on incriminating material found during the search, are not sustainable. It also held that investments and expenditures in the name of the assessee's daughter, supported by her earnings, cannot be added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessees did not receive a fair opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a physical hearing.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment proceedings under section 153A, which are not based on incriminating material found during the search, are not sustainable. It also held that investments and expenditures in the name of the assessee's daughter, supported by her earnings, cannot be added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment proceedings under section 153A, which are not based on incriminating material found during the search, are not sustainable. It also held that investments and expenditures in the name of the assessee's daughter, supported by her earnings, cannot be added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal restored the depreciation claim to the AO for fresh examination due to potential lack of proper hearing. The software development expense claim was also restored to the AO to determine if it's capital or revenue. The deduction for education cess was allowed based on High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest earned on deposits with a District Co-operative Bank was not allowable. The AO's rejection of the deduction was upheld, as the income was not derived from the primary business of providing credit facilities to members.

The Tribunal held that the assessees did not receive a fair opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a physical hearing.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the cross objections filed by the assessee were not maintainable and dismissed them. For the quantum appeal, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to the extent remanded by the High Court. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal restored the penalty order for two specific additions that survived the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for 'other reconciliation items' should be restricted to the amount for which details could not be furnished. For 'miscellaneous accruals', the disallowance to the extent of reclassification of expenditure was not justified, but the matter of year-end accrual adjustments attracting TDS liability needed further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for 'other reconciliation items' should be restricted to the amount for which details could not be furnished. For 'miscellaneous accruals', the disallowance to the extent of reclassification of expenditure was not justified, but the matter of year-end accrual adjustments attracting TDS liability needed further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment proceedings under section 153A, which are not based on incriminating material found during the search, are not sustainable. It also held that investments and expenditures in the name of the assessee's daughter, supported by her earnings, cannot be added to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the carry forward of excess application of income for charitable purposes is permissible. It followed the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate bench decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the carry forward of excess application of income for charitable purposes is permissible. It followed the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate bench decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the cross objections filed by the assessee were not maintainable and dismissed them. For the quantum appeal, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to the extent remanded by the High Court. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal restored the penalty order for two specific additions that survived the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the cross objections filed by the assessee were not maintainable and dismissed them. For the quantum appeal, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to the extent remanded by the High Court. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal restored the penalty order for two specific additions that survived the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of maintainability due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates that no appeal should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that rental income from property is taxable under 'income from house property' when separable from other assets. For bad debts, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine which debts related to accounted sales and had gone into the computation of income.

The Tribunal held that the service tax collected and not paid to the government exchequer before the due date of filing the return is disallowable under Section 43B. However, the issue was remitted to the AO to examine if the service tax was collected from parties and if it was debited to the profit and loss account.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C(1) is retrospective and applicable to the assessment year in question. It further held that the valuation for capital gains should be computed as prevailing on the date of the MOU.

The Tribunal held that fees collected under the management quota were not in violation of law and that depreciation is an application of income. It also considered the eligibility of deductions under Section 11(1)(a) and Section 11(2) in the context of assessment proceedings.