ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that the expenses in question do not fall under the purview of FBT. Circular No. 5 of 2008 cannot be relied upon to the disadvantage of the assessee, and deeming provisions apply only when expenditure is in the nature of consideration for employment.

The Tribunal noted that the AO proceeded on the premise of expenses without corresponding revenue, and there was a discrepancy in the accounting standards applied. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the disallowance of excess provision and interest on delayed TDS deposit, finding them to be wrongly disallowed. However, the appeal regarding depreciation on software expenses was dismissed, upholding the lower authorities' view.

The Tribunal held that as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals, the revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed. The revenue was given liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the expenses in question do not fall under the purview of FBT. Circular No. 5 of 2008 cannot be relied upon to the disadvantage of the assessee, and deeming provisions apply only when expenditure is in the nature of consideration for employment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' in Section 54, prior to the amendment in 2014, included investment in multiple residential houses. The amendment to restrict the exemption to one house was prospective.

The Tribunal held that while Section 44AD might not be directly applicable due to turnover exceeding the limit, the presumptive rate of 8% profit under Section 44AD can be considered a fair and reasonable estimate for contract business income when books are not maintained and details are unacceptable. The AO was directed to estimate income at 8% of gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that club expenses incurred for business promotion are allowable. Regarding PF and ESI contributions, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that payment before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) allows for deduction, and the amendments by Finance Act 2021 are not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had rightly claimed the deduction under Section 40(a)(ia) after providing details of TDS deduction and remittance. For deferred revenue, the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the decision of a coordinate bench on pending appeals, granting consequential relief.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions were not sustainable as the primary additions made to the society were deleted by the CIT(A) due to unreliable seized material. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 25 crores made on the basis of the assessee's statement, finding it lacked supporting evidence and was made with caveats.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that buildings let out, from which no depreciation is claimed, cannot be part of the block of assets. However, other buildings in the same class, like the factory building, remain in the block. Since the block's value was not exhausted after adjusting the sale proceeds, no short-term capital gain arose.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions were not sustainable as the primary additions made to the society were deleted by the CIT(A) due to unreliable seized material. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 25 crores made on the basis of the assessee's statement, finding it lacked supporting evidence and was made with caveats.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions were not sustainable as the primary additions made to the society were deleted by the CIT(A) due to unreliable seized material. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 25 crores made on the basis of the assessee's statement, finding it lacked supporting evidence and was made with caveats.

The Tribunal held that the possession given to the builder under the JDA was permissive 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 capital gains could not be assessed.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it null and void. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment arising from this time-barred order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the nature of the payment needed further verification to determine if it constituted royalty. Due to the non-production of relevant agreements before the lower authorities, the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions were not sustainable as the primary additions made to the society were deleted by the CIT(A) due to unreliable seized material. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 25 crores made on the basis of the assessee's statement, finding it lacked supporting evidence and was made with caveats.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 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.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 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.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that there was no sufficient material to prove the collection of capitation fees by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was held eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, and the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be not applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions were not sustainable as the primary additions made to the society were deleted by the CIT(A) due to unreliable seized material. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 25 crores made on the basis of the assessee's statement, finding it lacked supporting evidence and was made with caveats.

The Tribunal directed that a working capital adjustment should be computed and allowed, considering the actuals and the final set of comparable companies. The Tribunal emphasized that transfer pricing analysis is an estimation and reasonable adjustments are necessary to bring the tested party and comparables on the same footing.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the TPO was time-barred as it was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment was unsustainable and the revenue's appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially fulfilled the conditions for exemption under Section 54F. Relying on High Court decisions, it was found that the assessee is eligible for exemption even if the land was jointly held, provided the investment in construction was made by the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted certain issues to the TPO for fresh adjudication. Specifically, the issues of foreign exchange fluctuation and customs duty were to be examined for their impact on the arm's length price. The issue regarding the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution was also remitted to the AO for re-computation of operating margins.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions were not sustainable as the primary additions made to the society were deleted by the CIT(A) due to unreliable seized material. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 25 crores made on the basis of the assessee's statement, finding it lacked supporting evidence and was made with caveats.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not retrospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the protective additions were not sustainable as the primary additions made to the society were deleted by the CIT(A) due to unreliable seized material. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 25 crores made on the basis of the assessee's statement, finding it lacked supporting evidence and was made with caveats.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was held to be not retrospective.

The Tribunal found that the DRP disregarded substantial evidence provided by the assessee regarding expenses. It also directed the AO to consider the claim for set-off of brought forward losses after due verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no material evidence to support the AO's conclusion that the trust collected capitation fees. The Tribunal noted that the competent authority under the relevant Act had not found any violation by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no material evidence to support the AO's conclusion that the trust collected capitation fees. The Tribunal noted that the competent authority under the relevant Act had not found any violation by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no material evidence to support the AO's conclusion that the trust collected capitation fees. The Tribunal noted that the competent authority under the relevant Act had not found any violation by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the determination of the arm's length price (ALP) for royalty payment cannot be nil and remanded the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh determination. For the buyback of shares, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to verify the valuation considering RBI guidelines and other relevant evidence.

The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment is necessary to bring the tested party and comparable companies on the same footing. It directed the TPO/AO to re-examine the issue of working capital adjustment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Section 11. It found that the trust's primary activity was renting out the Kalyana Mandapa on a commercial basis, and there was no evidence of income being applied for other stated charitable purposes.