ITAT Bangalore Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.

The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 41(1) as the liability was acknowledged in the balance sheet and no benefit was derived by the assessee. The issue of unexplained cash credit related to a clerical error was remitted to the AO. The addition for unexplained investment in construction was also remitted to the AO due to inconsistencies in valuation reports and bank information.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, remanded the case back to the AO for de novo verification of the issues raised by the PCIT. The AO was directed to consider the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeals were not sufficiently explained and did not constitute a bonafide mistake. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is allowable as a 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 assessee is eligible for interest on the refund withheld until the date of issue. It further directed the AO to compute the interest on the shortfall amount under Section 244A(1A).

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable as the cash sales, the source of the deposits, were already offered to tax, leading to double taxation. The addition under Section 69C was also deleted as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash balance from sales to explain the housing loan repayment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 54, as the utilization of capital gains within the specified time for acquiring a residential property, even if registered later due to circumstances beyond control, fulfills the benevolent intent of the section.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in passing the order under Section 263. The cash seized was part of the business turnover and had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, the revision was initiated based on a proposal from the Assessing Officer, which lacked statutory sanction.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) for AY 2018-19 was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was precluded from challenging the validity of the search proceedings due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132. Regarding unproved credits, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 17.64 lakhs, stating that the assessee is only required to explain credits appearing in its own books, not those in the creditor's books.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for both years, restoring some issues to the AO/DRP for further consideration. The revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed.

The Tribunal remitted the issues of disallowance of liquidated damages and the addition to sale consideration for slump sale back to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to verify the facts and evidence, and in the case of slump sale, to summon the buyer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous because it was passed without making necessary inquiries and verifications, especially given the large capital gain involved. The PCIT was justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue of 'unearned revenue' back to the AO for de novo consideration. For disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal also remitted the issue to the AO to verify the reversal of provisions and allow the expenditure if substantiated, to avoid double disallowance.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue of 'unearned revenue' back to the AO for de novo consideration. For disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal also remitted the issue to the AO to verify the reversal of provisions and allow the expenditure if substantiated, to avoid double disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to furnish the return of income on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1) for claiming deductions under Section 80-IA to 80-IE is mandatory. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was precluded from challenging the validity of the search proceedings due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132. Regarding unproved credits, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 17.64 lakhs, stating that the assessee is only required to explain credits appearing in its own books, not those in the creditor's books.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was precluded from challenging the validity of the search proceedings due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132. Regarding unproved credits, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 17.64 lakhs, stating that the assessee is only required to explain credits appearing in its own books, not those in the creditor's books.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was precluded from challenging the validity of the search proceedings due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132. Regarding unproved credits, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 17.64 lakhs, stating that the assessee is only required to explain credits appearing in its own books, not those in the creditor's books.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue of 'unearned revenue' back to the AO for de novo consideration. For disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal also remitted the issue to the AO to verify the reversal of provisions and allow the expenditure if substantiated, to avoid double disallowance.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for both years, restoring some issues to the AO/DRP for further consideration. The revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for both years, restoring some issues to the AO/DRP for further consideration. The revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the evidence relied upon (loose sheets and ambivalent statements) was not sufficient to sustain the additions without corroborative independent evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the evidence relied upon (loose sheets and ambivalent statements) was not sufficient to sustain the additions without corroborative independent evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the evidence relied upon (loose sheets and ambivalent statements) was not sufficient to sustain the additions without corroborative independent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was precluded from challenging the validity of the search proceedings due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132. Regarding unproved credits, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 17.64 lakhs, stating that the assessee is only required to explain credits appearing in its own books, not those in the creditor's books.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to furnish the return of income on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1) for claiming deductions under Section 80-IA to 80-IE is mandatory. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal allowed grounds related to reimbursements for seconded employees, finding them to be cost-to-cost reimbursements not subject to withholding tax. It also directed a review of plant layout charges, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the evidence relied upon (loose sheets and ambivalent statements) was not sufficient to sustain the additions without corroborative independent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF was not sustainable. It noted that the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification applied prospectively from 1.4.2021, and similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that once the books of accounts are accepted by the AO, the entries therein, including expenditures, must also be accepted. The Tribunal found the assessee's computation of closing cash balance to be correct.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction if the employee's contribution was paid before the due date for filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date for filing the return of income was allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the evidence relied upon (loose sheets and ambivalent statements) was not sufficient to sustain the additions without corroborative independent evidence.

The Tribunal held that capital gains from the JDA should be taxed in AY 2015-16 as the transfer and receipt of consideration occurred then, not in AY 2014-15. It also noted that the transaction did not materialize due to lack of permissions, thus no profit or gain arose.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in disallowing the expenditure solely on the non-submission of LCOs' ITRs without proper scrutiny of the provided documentation. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for verification of the details and decision on allowability.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced confirmation letters from all parties. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of all transactions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction if the employee's contribution was paid before the due date for filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in not applying an upper turnover filter for comparable companies in the software development segment. For the market support services segment, the Tribunal found that the TPO did not conduct a proper study and directed a fresh TP analysis.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s cancellation of the assessment was incorrect, as the provisions of Section 153C do not require seized material to be incriminating or undisclosed. The Tribunal found that seized material belonging to the assessee was found during the search.