ITAT Bangalore Judgments — September 2022

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,NELAMANGALA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 636/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,SAKALESHPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 671/BANG/2022[2013-14 (26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BAGESHPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 595/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q2)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BANDIHOLE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 599/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BELUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 603/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,CHIKMAGALUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 614/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,BALEHONNUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 598/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,DEVARAPURA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 619/BANG/2022[2014-15( 26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax 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.

M/S. MITTAL CLOTHING COMPANY,BENGALURU vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 673/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment made by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective and applies only from 1.4.2021. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 is not sustainable.

GANIGARA REKHA VENUGOPAL,DEVANAHALLI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 674/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee needs to prove the saleable area received and the expenses attributable to the sale of developed sites with necessary evidence.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,ARASIKERE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 594/BANG/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,KUVEMPUNAGAR (HSN) vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 669/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

KARNATAKA GRAMEEN BANK,KUMBALAGODU vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 667/BANG/2022[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Heard5 Sept 2022Allowed

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.

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2022AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the scope of adjustments under Section 143(1) is limited and does not allow for reliefs not claimed in the original return. The assessee's remedy was to file a revised return.

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2022AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the scope of adjustments under Section 143(1) is limited and does not allow for reliefs not claimed in the original return. The assessee's remedy was to file a revised return.

SRI C ANIL RAHASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 1733/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal held that the issue of purchases from unregistered dealers needed to be verified by the Assessing Officer. Similarly, the issue of cash deposits was also remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and taken a possible view regarding the classification of income. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be erroneous as the twin conditions of the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not satisfied.

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and taken a possible view regarding the classification of income. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be erroneous as the twin conditions of the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not satisfied.

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

ITA 989/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that payments for training services do not fall under the definition of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as per Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the payment was not taxable in the hands of the non-resident in India, and the assessee was entitled to a refund of the TDS.

MICROLAND FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BANGALORE

ITA 411/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition for the delay in filing Form No. 10. The benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) would be granted if the delay is condoned by the CIT(Exemption).

VARSHA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the source and capacity for investments. However, the denial of cross-examination on third-party statements was considered, and the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC IT BUSINESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

ITA 185/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remitted the issues concerning CSR expenditure and Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to the DRP for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide necessary details. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was also remitted to the DRP to examine if there was any exempted income. The claim regarding Ind AS adjustment on preference shares was also directed to be examined afresh by the DRP.

MICROLAND FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BANGALORE

ITA 410/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition for the delay in filing Form No. 10. The benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) would be granted if the delay is condoned by the CIT(Exemption).

VARSHA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the source and capacity for investments. However, the denial of cross-examination on third-party statements was considered, and the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

VARSHA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the source and capacity for investments. However, the denial of cross-examination on third-party statements was considered, and the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

VARSHA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the source and capacity for investments. However, the denial of cross-examination on third-party statements was considered, and the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.