ITAT Bangalore Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that prior cash withdrawals from the same bank account should be accepted as the source for subsequent deposits. The Revenue cannot insist on proof of availability or the purpose of the earlier withdrawals.

The Tribunal held that earlier cash withdrawals from bank accounts should be accepted as a valid explanation for later cash deposits, following the Karnataka High Court's precedent. It also acknowledged that a reasonable quantum of cash from past savings should be considered.

The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15. It held that management fees and Global Sales and Marketing Activity Fees should be considered as operating costs, allocated in the ratio of turnover of other international transactions, and then the ALP should be determined under TNMM analysis.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the assessee's own case were remanded for fresh examination. The TPO's approach of applying the 'benefit test' to determine ALP was found to be not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that there was no transfer in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act in the assessment year under consideration as the construction project had not progressed and possession was permissive. Capital gains would be taxable in the year the assessee actually receives his share of constructed flats.

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 40,17,124/- was directly paid by the purchaser to the HDFC Bank loan account to discharge the assessee's loan, as evidenced by the sale deed. Therefore, it could not be considered an unexplained credit.

The Tribunal held that the royalty payment issue needed reconsideration by the AO/TPO in light of previous directions. The commission expenditure was allowed as a genuine business expense. Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding insurance charges and remitted the issue to the AO for verification. Regarding brand launch expenses, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission of double disallowance and remitted the issue to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case and submit further documentation.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under section 153A must be based on seized material or information collected during the search. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the grounds related to disallowance of technical support services were not pressed and were dismissed. The grounds concerning short grant of credit for advance tax and TDS, and non-grant of MAT credit were remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case and submit further documentation.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, no adjustment could be made for the delay in filing TDS statements for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the royalty payment issue needed reconsideration by the AO/TPO in light of previous directions. The commission expenditure was allowed as a genuine business expense. Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, finding a direct nexus between the foreign travel and the securing of capital investment in the assessee's business. The expenditure was deemed capital in nature and not allowable as revenue expenditure.

The tribunal held that sub-contracting expenses disallowed due to non-deduction of TDS cannot be allowed in the current year but should be considered for taxability upon reversal in the subsequent year. Payments for training services were not treated as fees for technical services, allowing the deduction.

The tribunal held that sub-contracting expenses disallowed due to non-deduction of TDS cannot be allowed in the current year but should be considered for taxability upon reversal in the subsequent year. Payments for training services were not treated as fees for technical services, allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), was incorrect. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), was incorrect. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, along with the CBDT's Memorandum of Explanation, were applicable prospectively from 1.4.2021. Therefore, the impugned disallowance was not sustainable.

The Tribunal, following the High Court's directive and considering fresh submissions and evidence, restored the issue of commission payments to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Tribunal noted that for most other assessment years, these payments were allowed as deductions.

The Tribunal, following the High Court's directive and considering fresh submissions and evidence, restored the issue of commission payments to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Tribunal noted that for most other assessment years, these payments were allowed as deductions.

The Tribunal, following the High Court's directive and considering fresh submissions and evidence, restored the issue of commission payments to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Tribunal noted that for most other assessment years, these payments were allowed as deductions.

The Tribunal, following the High Court's directive and considering fresh submissions and evidence, restored the issue of commission payments to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Tribunal noted that for most other assessment years, these payments were allowed as deductions.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2)(b) is applicable for disallowing excessive payments made to related parties, even in the context of computing capital gains. The AO's disallowance of commission paid to directors was therefore upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, which clarified the treatment of employee's contributions, were prospective in nature and applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, the disallowance made for the impugned assessment year was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on CCDs before conversion cannot be treated as interest on equity and is allowable as expenditure. The determination of ALP was remanded back to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that analyzing international transactions based on a wrong assumption of services rendered would prejudice the arms-length computation. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the entire computation of arms-length to the TPO for a fresh assessment, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that a fair opportunity of hearing was not provided. Consequently, the Principal CIT's order was vacated, and the issue was remitted for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employee's contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the assessee is entitled to deduction if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that cooperative societies registered under state acts are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income from providing credit facilities to members. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the issue in light of this judgment.

The Tribunal held that the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) are not retrospective and do not apply to the assessment year 2020-21. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the deduction is allowable if paid before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank requiring an RBI license and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on enhanced profits. For AY 2015-16, the issue of rent income from godowns was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank requiring an RBI license and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on enhanced profits. For AY 2015-16, the issue of rent income from godowns was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the exemption limit of Rs. 1 crore under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be applied to each educational institution separately and not clubbed together. Furthermore, the AO could not disallow such a debatable claim during the prima facie processing under Section 143(1).

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 assessee is entitled to deduction if the employees' 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 paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance of interest on delayed TDS was also addressed.

The Tribunal held that the reference made by the AO to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) was invalid as the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts, which is a pre-condition for such a reference. Therefore, the addition based on the DVO's report could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the exemption limit of Rs. 1 crore under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be applied to each educational institution separately and not clubbed together. Furthermore, the AO could not disallow such a debatable claim during the prima facie processing under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the amendments made to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 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 should be allowed.

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 paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the deduction for employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed.

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 delayed payments made before the due date of filing the return of income were allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank requiring an RBI license and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on enhanced profits. For AY 2015-16, the issue of rent income from godowns was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.