ITAT Bangalore Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was valid, as the assessee's response was considered before issuing the intimation. The delayed payment of employee's contribution to ESI and PF is not allowable as a deduction as per Section 36(1)(va) and the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,90,900 to the assessee's total income was justified. The assessee had made a voluntary disclosure, and the Revenue authorities acted within their powers.

The Tribunal held that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B operate on different parameters regarding due dates for employee and employer contributions. Failure to pay employee contributions by the due date results in a permanent denial of deduction.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a) is valid in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The assessee is not entitled to a deduction for belated payment of employee's share of ESI and PF contributions.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal were not satisfactory. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of bad debts and commission expenses were unsustainable. For issues where physical submissions were made but not considered, the matters were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted as the nature of payment was not clearly established.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be lacking in diligence and cogent reasons. The Tribunal noted the unlikelihood of the assessee not inquiring about the appeal's status for several years and the CA's claimed ignorance of the dismissal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposit as it was preceded by a withdrawal from the same bank account. The AO's rejection based on the perceived need for withdrawal was considered speculative.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of bad debts and commission expenses were unsustainable. For issues where physical submissions were made but not considered, the matters were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted as the nature of payment was not clearly established.

The Tribunal held that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B(b) operate on different parameters regarding due dates for payment. Failure to pay employee's contribution within the prescribed due date under the respective Acts results in permanent negation of the employer's claim for deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of Section 10B deduction had been remitted to the AO in previous appeals. Regarding the forward exchange contract loss, the Tribunal found that these transactions were for hedging foreign currency risk and were incidental to the export business, thus not speculative. However, since the revenue had appealed a similar issue to the High Court, the Tribunal decided to await the outcome of that appeal.

The Tribunal held that the unfinished building qualifies as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. The sale proceeds from building materials were correctly treated as short-term capital gains, and the claim for additional labour costs was rejected due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly. It directed the AO to allow deduction for sales promotion and advertisement expenses as revenue expenditure and to verify TDS/TCS credit. The issue of disallowance on Project Spirit Report was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the adjournment request and without going into the merits of the case. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment to ensure justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's belated filing constituted a conscious disregard of statutory obligations and that there was no reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the penalty was rightly levied.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of being uneducated and unaware of the law change. However, due to the lack of proper submissions before the lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for miscellaneous expenses and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant correct credit for TDS and advance tax. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were dismissed.

The Tribunal directed the AO to give effect to the DRP's directions regarding the software development segment adjustment. For corporate guarantee fees and interest on receivables, the issue was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration based on prior Tribunal orders. The disallowance under Section 14A was also remanded to the AO for examination of exempt income.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for miscellaneous expenses and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant correct credit for TDS and advance tax. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not demonstrated the deductibility of the expenditure for computing income from business and profession. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found the reasons for not filing the condonation petition to be bonafide and directed the assessee to file one before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was instructed to condone the delay if satisfied and then adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. It was held that if the amount was claimed as a deduction and TDS was not deducted, then Section 40(a)(ia) would be applicable, disallowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted a reasonable inquiry during the original assessment. The PCIT did not provide sufficient material to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the 'Splash' division qualified as a slump sale and the gains should be treated as capital gains. It also held that hedging losses on foreign currency are not speculative transactions.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date as per the explanation to Section 36(1)(va) to be allowable under Section 43B. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' approach on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock represented unaccounted stock and the addition should have been made under Section 69B, not Section 69C as proposed by the PCIT. The Tribunal also found that the AO had not verified the difference between the P&L account net profit and the computation of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a 'Cooperative' registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, and not a 'Cooperative Society' registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. Therefore, it is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the issues on merits and had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance. Based on joint submissions, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 when the assessee had opted for and been accepted into the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) scheme for the very issue under revision. The revision proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies (Infosys Ltd., L&T Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Thirdware Solutions Ltd.) from the list of comparables used for determining the arm's length price. This was due to functional dissimilarity and reliance on previous judicial decisions.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies (Infosys Ltd., L&T Infotech Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Thirdware Solutions Ltd.) from the list of comparables used for determining the arm's length price. This was due to functional dissimilarity and reliance on previous judicial decisions.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to the disallowance of ESOP expenditure, following previous rulings that such expenses are deductible under Section 37. However, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that some issues might have been decided in favor of the department or remanded.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was ex-parte and that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the entire issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date as per the explanation to Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act for it to be allowable under Section 43B. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting, recognizing revenue upon transfer of risks and rewards (property registration), should be accepted. It found that applying the percentage completion method resulted in double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on leasehold land for mining. The additional ground regarding deduction for expenses incurred to acquire surface rights was dismissed as infructuous in light of the main ground's decision.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C was vague and did not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Apex Court and CBDT circulars. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C was vague and did not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Apex Court and CBDT circulars. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C was vague and did not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Apex Court and CBDT circulars. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C was vague and did not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Apex Court and CBDT circulars. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal held that interest on delayed remittance of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure, following a High Court decision. Regarding gratuity payments, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue to the AO for re-examination. The claim for TDS and advance tax credit was also directed to be verified and allowed by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on leasehold land for mining. The additional ground regarding deduction for expenses incurred to acquire surface rights was dismissed as infructuous in light of the main ground's decision.

The Tribunal held that interest on delayed remittance of TDS is not an allowable business expenditure, following a High Court decision. Regarding gratuity payments, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue to the AO for re-examination. The claim for TDS and advance tax credit was also directed to be verified and allowed by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on leasehold land for mining. The additional ground regarding deduction for expenses incurred to acquire surface rights was dismissed as infructuous in light of the main ground's decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on leasehold land for mining. The additional ground regarding deduction for expenses incurred to acquire surface rights was dismissed as infructuous in light of the main ground's decision.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. It also directed the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A while computing book profits under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C was vague and did not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Apex Court and CBDT circulars. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C was vague and did not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Apex Court and CBDT circulars. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid.