ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to an unexplained and unreasonable delay in filing. The Tribunal also held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted only to transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and not extended to transactions with non-AEs.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for trademark registration are statutory and for a limited period, thus not capital in nature. Similarly, salary paid to R&D employees for software development is revenue expenditure in the competitive software industry. The issue of share premium was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same issue already considered in the original assessment, without any new material, amounts to a change of opinion and is impermissible. The CSR expenditure incurred voluntarily was also held to be allowable as a business expenditure.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the non-service of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred by not considering the evidence submitted by the assessee and restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and that a minor procedural lapse should not disentitle the assessee to FTC. The Tribunal also noted that DTAA provisions override the Act and Rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to an unexplained and unreasonable delay in filing. The Tribunal also held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted only to transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and not extended to transactions with non-AEs.

The Tribunal held that the de facto ownership of the lands could not be determined solely based on the board resolution. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify who funded the purchase and received the sale proceeds.

The Tribunal reduced the estimated income for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 from 8% to 4% of the turnover. For AY 2015-16, it directed estimation of 4% of credit card payments and bank deposits as income, after considering the assessee's declared income.

The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of seized documents by the AO should be considered the 'date of initiation of search' for the purpose of Section 153C. Since the assessment orders were passed after this date, and pending assessments on that date should abate as per Section 153A(1) proviso, the impugned assessment orders were rendered non-est.

The Tribunal reduced the estimated income for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 from 8% to 4% of the turnover. For AY 2015-16, it directed estimation of 4% of credit card payments and bank deposits as income, after considering the assessee's declared income.

The Tribunal held that the corporate restructuring and setting off of losses against share premium in the books of account does not affect the assessee's right to claim set off of brought forward losses under the Income Tax Act. It also held that outstanding liabilities shown in the books for many years do not automatically amount to cessation of liability under Section 41(1) without proof of remission or write-off.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the de facto ownership of the lands could not be determined solely based on the board resolution. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify who funded the purchase and received the sale proceeds.

The Tribunal held that the de facto ownership of the lands could not be determined solely based on the board resolution. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify who funded the purchase and received the sale proceeds.

The Tribunal held that the de facto ownership of the lands could not be determined solely based on the board resolution. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify who funded the purchase and received the sale proceeds.

The Tribunal reduced the estimated income for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 from 8% to 4% of the turnover. For AY 2015-16, it directed estimation of 4% of credit card payments and bank deposits as income, after considering the assessee's declared income.

The Tribunal held that the de facto ownership of the lands could not be determined solely based on the board resolution. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify who funded the purchase and received the sale proceeds.

The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of seized documents by the AO should be considered the 'date of initiation of search' for the purpose of Section 153C. Since the assessment orders were passed after this date, and pending assessments on that date should abate as per Section 153A(1) proviso, the impugned assessment orders were rendered non-est.

The Tribunal held that the confirmation letter from the tenant was an afterthought and lacked credibility. The Tribunal also noted that the tenant's source of cash was not established, and the dates of payment did not align with the lease agreement or currency import regulations.

The Tribunal held that while Section 68 might not be strictly applicable, the assessee could be asked to explain the foreign currency under Section 69A. Due to unclear facts regarding the AO's and CIT(A)'s examination of evidence and the assessee's explanation, the matter was remanded back to the AO.

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 deduction for employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable.

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 addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that prior period expenses crystallized during the year are allowable. It also ruled that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not apply to banking companies, and this position was maintained for the assessment year prior to the amendment.

The Tribunal held that prior period expenses crystallized during the year are allowable. It also ruled that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not apply to banking companies, and this position was maintained for the assessment year prior to the amendment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made in the assessment under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material seized during the search to link to these additions. The income from sale of land and relinquishment of rights was to be treated as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the additions made in the assessment under Section 153A were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material seized during the search to link to these additions. The income from sale of land and relinquishment of rights was to be treated as capital gains.

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 deduction for employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable.