ITAT Bangalore Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable as it was not explicitly covered under Section 32 of the Act. However, it allowed the finance cost disallowance as the assessee's own funds exceeded the advances made to sister concerns.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid, as the seized documents were found to pertain to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of its total income. The AO's satisfaction note was deemed sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid, as the seized documents were found to pertain to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of its total income. The AO's satisfaction note was deemed sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid, as the seized documents were found to pertain to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of its total income. The AO's satisfaction note was deemed sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to establish that the claimed expenses were incurred for the purpose of business. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s disallowance of business loss set off was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay were bonafide and constituted 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed as claimed by the assessee, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the continued use of land for agricultural purposes until sale is crucial to retain its agricultural character, even after conversion. Since this fact was not adequately examined, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that despite the conversion for non-agricultural purposes, the land remained agricultural as it was recorded as such in revenue records and agricultural operations continued. Therefore, the sale of the land was exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be allowed as claimed by the assessee, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the continued use of land for agricultural purposes until sale is crucial to retain its agricultural character, even after conversion. Since this fact was not adequately examined, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid, as the seized documents were found to pertain to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of its total income. The AO's satisfaction note was deemed sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied an opportunity to raise objections against the presumptive Fair Market Value under Section 50C(1) or the DVO's report. The guidance value cannot ipso facto be taken as the valuation for capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid, as the seized documents were found to pertain to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of its total income. The AO's satisfaction note was deemed sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid, as the seized documents were found to pertain to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of its total income. The AO's satisfaction note was deemed sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay were bonafide and constituted 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal condoned the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets by following a previous decision for the same assessee. However, it remitted the issue of software expenses back to the AO for fresh consideration based on submitted evidence and jurisdictional High Court rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the reconciliation of revenue as per invoices versus financial statements for the suppressed income issue, affording the assessee a hearing. For the depreciation claim, the AO was directed to examine the assessee's entitlement to depreciation on expenses disallowed as capital in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the loss as a bad debt write-off. It directed the AO to re-examine the issue of allowing the deduction in the year the embezzlement was discovered, as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to landowners for their share of flats, which were then sold, constituted part of the overall cost of the housing project. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) on the profits derived from these sales.

The Tribunal held that management fees should be considered on a composite transaction basis and remanded the issue for fresh consideration. It also deleted the disallowance of bank charges under Section 14A but confirmed the disallowance related to dividend income.

The Tribunal held that since the property was actually let out and possession was handed over within the financial year, Section 23(1)(c) of the IT Act was applicable, not Section 23(1)(a). Therefore, as no rent was received, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s disallowance of interest expenditure under 'other sources' due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to landowners for their share of flats, which were then sold, constituted part of the overall cost of the housing project. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) on the profits derived from these sales.

The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order dated January 30, 2015, was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153 of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was quashed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order dated January 30, 2015, was passed beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153 of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was quashed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the issue of quantum addition regarding interest expenses and income needed reconsideration. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was premature and also required reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the issue of quantum addition regarding interest expenses and income needed reconsideration. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was premature and also required reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of unexplained creditors to the AO for fresh consideration, noting that confirmation letters were filed before the CIT(A). The issue of enhancement of assessment by the CIT(A) was also remitted to the CIT(A) for reconsideration after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' activities, which included civil contract work like road construction and building repairs, were commercial in nature and not in accordance with their stated charitable objects. Therefore, they were not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

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

The Tribunal held that the interest credited in the Escrow Account was not taxable as the assessee had no right to it until the underlying tax liability was settled. The issue of cash deposits was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the interest credited in the Escrow Account was not taxable as the assessee had no right to it until the underlying tax liability was settled. The issue of cash deposits was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the interest credited in the Escrow Account was not taxable as the assessee had no right to it until the underlying tax liability was settled. The issue of cash deposits was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

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

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the context of business transfer through slump sale, especially for assessment years prior to April 1, 2021. The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly invoked Explanation 3 to Section 43(1).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined each deposit and that the order was cryptic. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to include I2T2 India Ltd. as a comparable after verification, and to follow the DRP's order regarding Cigniti Technologies Ltd. Several other comparables were also directed to be considered or reconsidered.

The Tribunal held that the interest credited in the Escrow Account was not taxable as the assessee had no right to it until the underlying tax liability was settled. The issue of cash deposits was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that interest income earned by the assessee from its investments is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The case was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee did not emanate from the Section 154 order passed by the Assessing Officer. The grounds were related to the earlier order giving effect to the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal restored the issue of sub-contracting expenses to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination, following a coordinate bench's order. For Section 10AA deduction, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow it in accordance with law, irrespective of the amount claimed in the return, citing High Court and coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that vehicle lease rentals are allowable as expenditure. For sub-contracting expenses, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Regarding Section 10AA deduction, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow it in accordance with law, irrespective of the quantum claimed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a resident of India, is taxable on capital gains as per the Indian Income Tax Act. It further observed that the DTAA is primarily for avoiding double taxation when income is taxable in both contracting states, which was not the case here as the income was taxable in India.