ITAT Bangalore Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the assessee's share valuation without proper examination and deleted the addition. Regarding the disallowance, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification of TDS applicability and tax payment by payees.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on point of sales materials was not revenue in nature and upheld the disallowance. However, it directed the AO to allow depreciation on the amount treated as capital expenditure.

The tribunal held that routers and switches, when used as part of a computer's functions, are to be included in the block of 'Computer' entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60%. The issue of depreciation on networking equipment was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the effective rate of interest, considering the moratorium period, should be factored in for benchmarking. The lower authorities erred by not considering the time value of money and the fact that no interest was paid during the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, with retrospective effect, rendered the reference to the TPO for specified domestic transactions invalid. Therefore, the addition made on this basis was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not properly served on the assessee, meaning there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, it noted a delay in filing before the CIT(A) and found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) stage for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO had introduced a new issue (difference between cost of goods sold and sales turnover) which was not part of the original remand direction. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the wastage claims, allowing up to 0.3% for jewellery and considering medallions based on evidence, remitting the issue back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that since the depreciation on the assets received free of cost is considered part of operating expenses under the APA and has already suffered tax, a separate addition under Section 28(iv) would lead to double taxation and is therefore not warranted.

The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered was sourced from the assessee's business receipts and should not be taxed under Section 115BBE as unexplained expenditure. The assessee was allowed to set off the current year's loss against this income.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the brought forward losses, making the PCIT's revisionary action unjustified on this point. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's verification of STT paid for long-term capital gains exemption was not adequately documented.

The Tribunal held that the profit derived from the sale of apartments earmarked for landowners is also derived from the development and building of the housing project. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IB(10) on these profits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to Section 54B deduction as the new land was purchased before the sale of the old land. However, it allowed the admission of additional evidence for expenses and remitted issues regarding expenses and cash deposits back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was not in accordance with the DRP's directions regarding TP adjustment as it failed to incorporate the revised figures. The TP adjustment made by NFAC was consequently quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not provide the assessment order for the preceding year to ascertain if the depreciation loss was allowed. Without this information, it was unclear how the loss could be claimed again. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) should be adopted as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The matter was remanded to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was correct in dismissing the TDS credit ground as not arising from the rectification order. However, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for passing a rectification order considering the TDS credit in the name of the merged entity.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was erroneous as the issue of eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and the interpretation of the aggregate receipt limit were debatable. Such debatable issues cannot be adjusted under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for tax deduction at source at the time of payment, as the law prevailing then did not mandate it for services rendered outside India. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was correct in dismissing the TDS credit ground as not arising from the rectification order. However, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for passing a rectification order considering the TDS credit in the name of the merged entity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for tax deduction at source at the time of payment, as the law prevailing then did not mandate it for services rendered outside India. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 after the due date is a procedural lapse and not fatal to the claim for FTC. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Act and Rules, and disallowing FTC for a procedural delay is not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the ESOP expenditure, holding it as revenue expenditure deductible under Section 37, and deleted the disallowance of customs duty. It also allowed the Rs. 50 lakhs deduction under Section 43B, finding it to be an allowable payment towards gratuity for an approved fund.

The Tribunal held that if the employee contribution to PF is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it is allowable as a deduction, even if it is beyond the due date prescribed under the PF Act. The amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in this case. The reliance placed by the NFAC on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. was found to be misplaced as Section 234E is a charging section, not an exemption clause.