ITAT Bangalore Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that the interest and dividend income earned by the assessee on surplus funds invested during the project execution phase are capital receipts. These receipts are inextricably linked with the setting up of the business and should reduce the project cost, not be taxed as income.

The Tribunal admitted the claim for deduction under Section 10AA for both assessment years, acknowledging the assessee's explanation for not filing Form 56F in one year and its electronic filing in the other. The matter was restored to the AO for examination of the claim.

The Tribunal admitted the claim for deduction under Section 10AA for both assessment years, acknowledging the assessee's explanation for not filing Form 56F in one year and its electronic filing in the other. The matter was restored to the AO for examination of the claim.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor CIT(A) had the benefit of a High Court decision on similar facts. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue in light of the High Court ruling, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for expenditure was bona fide and based on wrong professional advice. Since the assessee admitted the error and paid tax upon being pointed out, there was no intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute the Arm's Length Price considering specific directions regarding comparable companies and their margins. For the corporate tax issue, the Tribunal held that deduction under Section 10A should be allowed before setting off losses of non-10A units, following the Supreme Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C cannot be sustained if they are not based on incriminating material found during the search. The assessment proceedings were unabated prior to the search, and no additions can be made under Section 153C without such material.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C cannot be sustained if they are not based on incriminating material found during the search. The assessment proceedings were unabated prior to the search, and no additions can be made under Section 153C without such material.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C cannot be sustained if they are not based on incriminating material found during the search. The assessment proceedings were unabated prior to the search, and no additions can be made under Section 153C without such material.

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 addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the additions made for the assessment year 2019-20 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the additions made for the assessment year 2019-20 were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided an affidavit claiming suppliers insisted on cash payments due to business expediency and convenience, especially in a rural area with no banking facilities. The Tribunal found these claims required verification.

The Tribunal held that the lands sold were agricultural lands as per revenue records and agricultural activities were carried out. Therefore, the sale of these lands is exempt from capital gains tax and not taxable as business income.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the lands sold were agricultural lands as per revenue records and agricultural activities were carried out. Therefore, the sale of these lands was exempt from capital gains tax and not an adventure in trade.

The Tribunal held that the lands sold were agricultural lands as per revenue records and agricultural activities were carried out. Therefore, the sale of these lands is exempt from capital gains tax and not taxable as business income.

The Tribunal held that the lands sold were agricultural lands as per revenue records and agricultural activities were carried out. Therefore, the sale of these lands was not a transfer of a capital asset and was exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the transaction between the trust and its managing trustee, who was intimately connected and managing its affairs, did not constitute a loan or deposit attracting Section 269SS. It also found reasonable cause for accepting cash due to urgent business exigencies.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenses should not be treated as a separate international transaction when the assessee's gross and net margins for the distribution segment are already at arm's length. No separate adjustment is required for AMP expenses in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was valid even if incriminating material was found in a related search, as the assessee itself was searched. The Tribunal confirmed additions for inflated expenditure, finding that payments were supported by self-made vouchers and lacked necessary evidence. Depreciation claims on disallowed labour charges were also rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the tax authorities did not examine the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the transaction's genuineness. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion. The AO had already been provided with all relevant property details during the original assessment, and no new material was discovered.

The Tribunal restored the issue of inclusion of four comparable companies to the file of the TPO for fresh examination. It also directed the TPO to examine the claim for working capital adjustment and to re-examine the transfer pricing adjustment on outstanding receivables.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to interest on late payment of service tax. For other grounds concerning non-deduction of withholding tax on various payments, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to interest on late payment of service tax. For other grounds concerning non-deduction of withholding tax on various payments, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted, as the employees' contribution 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 43B and 36(1)(va) was held to be not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, which was not situated within a specified distance from a municipality and was used for agricultural operations, could not be considered an adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the income arising from such sale was to be treated as agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, which was not situated within a specified distance from a municipality and was used for agricultural operations, could not be considered an adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the income arising from such sale was to be treated as agricultural income.

The Tribunal found that the turnover declared to the Income Tax Department was not in conformity with the turnover declared to the Commercial Tax Department. Therefore, the appeals were remitted to the AO for fresh consideration on the pressed grounds, including additional grounds for AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the IT Act, is eligible for deduction. The recent amendment to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the Lokayukta which indicated the actual investment was Rs. 80,49,747. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was found to have lost its substratum.

The Tribunal upheld the view that extended credit period to an AE is a separate international transaction, but directed the AO to re-examine the reimbursement issue based on agreements and additional evidence. The Section 10AA deduction claims were restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the turnover declared to the Income Tax Department was not in conformity with the turnover declared to the Commercial Tax Department. Therefore, the appeals were remitted to the AO for fresh consideration on the pressed grounds, including additional grounds for AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the share applicant. The department failed to bring any contrary material on record, hence the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, which was not situated within a specified distance from a municipality and was used for agricultural operations, could not be considered an adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the income arising from such sale was to be treated as agricultural income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the service tax addition, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify if the service tax was actually collected from customers and not deposited.

The Tribunal found that while trial production can qualify for depreciation, the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence of power production up to March 31, 2012. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not clarificatory and is prospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) were not applicable as they were prospective.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the deduction is allowable if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). 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 amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not clarificatory and does not apply retrospectively. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not clarificatory and is prospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income.