ITAT Bangalore Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that a concluded assessment cannot be disturbed under Section 153A unless there is incriminating material found during the search that contradicts the finalized assessment. Since no such material was found regarding the 80IB claim, the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act, which disallowed such deductions, was prospective and effective only from AY 2021-22. Therefore, the disallowance for AY 2017-18 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the TP adjustments for the software development segment based on the TPO's revised order. For the marketing support and software distribution segments, the AO was directed to consider the deletion of TP adjustments as per the TPO's order giving effect to DRP directions. The Tribunal also allowed the exclusion of certain comparables with high turnover and restored the issue of a specific comparable's financial year to the AO/TPO.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural aspect and disallowing the deduction solely for its late filing, when the return was filed within the due date and the claim was made in the original return, is not justified. The quantum of deduction was also not examined by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) estimated the Gross Profit without proper verification. The assessee's declared turnover was lower than what appeared in Form 26AS, and the reasons for this discrepancy needed to be established.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in claiming adjustments for working capital differences. It directed the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to grant the working capital adjustment in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deductible 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 disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was incorrect if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The addition on account of stock valuation was deleted as the variation was minimal and revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The addition on account of stock valuation was deleted as the variation was minimal and revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The addition on account of stock valuation was deleted as the variation was minimal and revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The addition on account of stock valuation was deleted as the variation was minimal and revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The addition on account of stock valuation was deleted as the variation was minimal and revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A was sustained by the CIT(A). The appeal is against this sustained addition.

The Tribunal held that while interest earned on investments with cooperative societies may be deductible, interest earned on investments in banks is not. However, if interest income from bank deposits is to be taxed, proportionate expenses must be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A), being a lower authority, cannot sit in judgment over the order of the Principal CIT who had condoned the delay. Therefore, the CIT(A) was bound by the Principal CIT's order.

The tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove with evidence that the cash deposit was from known sources, specifically her Dubai earnings. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The addition for stock valuation was deleted as the variation was minimal and revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS disallowance to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination, directing the AO to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. Certain grounds related to transfer pricing were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The addition on account of stock valuation was deleted as the variation was minimal and revenue-neutral.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not verified the assessee's claims regarding agricultural income and accumulated cash. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination after the assessee produces necessary evidence.

The tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses for software usage was not liable for TDS and thus not disallowable under Section 40(a)(i). It also held that a write-back of excess salary provision, which had already suffered tax in a prior year, should be deleted to avoid double taxation. However, education cess was held not to be allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that TNMM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking license and management fees due to the interlinked nature of these payments with the core manufacturing business and the difficulty in applying CUP. The TPO's rejection of TNMM and adoption of CUP at Nil was not sustained.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined whether the assessee's unit was indeed located in a notified SEZ for the purpose of Section 115JB(6). It noted that a previous notification rescinded the SEZ status of the area.

The Tribunal held that TNMM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking license and management fees due to the interlinked nature of these payments with the core manufacturing business and the difficulty in applying CUP. The TPO's rejection of TNMM and adoption of CUP at Nil was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C require unearthing of incriminating material during a search. Since the assessment was completed prior to the search and was unabated, and no search material was found, the additions could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that TNMM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking license and management fees due to the interlinked nature of these payments with the core manufacturing business and the difficulty in applying CUP. The TPO's rejection of TNMM and adoption of CUP at Nil was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, even if paid after the due date stipulated by the respective PF/ESI Acts.

The Tribunal, after noting that the High Court had condoned the delay and remitted the appeal, decided to give the assessee another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if employee PF/ESI contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the disallowance is not sustainable, even if paid after the due date under the respective PF/ESI Acts.

The Tribunal held that if employee PF/ESI contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the disallowance is not sustainable, even if paid after the due date under the respective PF/ESI Acts.

The Tribunal held that if the employee contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, even if paid after the due date stipulated in the respective PF/ESI Acts.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the Supreme Court's orders regarding the period of limitation during the pandemic. The disallowance of employee PF/ESI contribution was also deleted, as the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income, aligning with earlier tribunal and high court judgments.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), such payments are allowable as deductions under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, even if paid after the due date prescribed by the respective PF/ESI Acts.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on hedge swaps for repayment of business loans is deductible under Section 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal also admitted the additional ground regarding DDT, indicating it's a legal issue on existing facts.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and remanded the case back to the AO for de novo verification. The AO was directed to consider the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach of applying the benefit test to determine ALP was not in accordance with the law and that the issue of separate benchmarking of management fees needed reconsideration. It also followed a coordinate bench decision to allow the write-off of loose tools.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a contractor executing works contracts for infrastructure projects, not a developer of infrastructure. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal held that the trust's objects and activities were both charitable and religious, and importantly, did not exclusively benefit a particular religious community. Therefore, the assessee's plea to be recognized for 'charitable purpose' was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a contractor executing works contracts for infrastructure projects, not a developer of infrastructure. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issues concerning manufacturing and AMP expenses to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration, directing them to apply the CUP method and examine the applicability of the Maruti Suzuki decision, respectively. The provision for compensated leave was held not to be a contingent liability for Section 115JB purposes.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach of applying the benefit test to determine ALP was not in accordance with the law and that the issue of separate benchmarking of management fees needed reconsideration. It also followed a coordinate bench decision to allow the write-off of loose tools.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach of applying the benefit test to determine ALP was not in accordance with the law and that the issue of separate benchmarking of management fees needed reconsideration. It also followed a coordinate bench decision to allow the write-off of loose tools.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach of applying the benefit test to determine ALP was not in accordance with the law and that the issue of separate benchmarking of management fees needed reconsideration. It also followed a coordinate bench decision to allow the write-off of loose tools.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach of applying the benefit test to determine ALP was not in accordance with the law and that the issue of separate benchmarking of management fees needed reconsideration. It also followed a coordinate bench decision to allow the write-off of loose tools.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's conclusion that the AO's order was erroneous was not tenable as the PCIT misinterpreted the AO's actions regarding Section 44AD. However, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the PCIT's observations regarding the dropping of penalty proceedings, following a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's conclusion that the AO's order was erroneous regarding the estimation of profits was incorrect. However, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's observations regarding the dropping of penalty proceedings, following a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The issue regarding the levy of interest under Section 234E for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, relying on its previous decision in the case of M/s. Divyasree Realtors, held that the contract work was genuine. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the capitalized amounts.