ITAT Bangalore Judgments — December 2022

The Tribunal held that the convenience fee retained by M/s. Bigtree was a margin charged from end customers for services provided by M/s. Bigtree, not a commission payable by the assessee. Therefore, Section 194H was not applicable as M/s. Bigtree did not act on behalf of the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the TPO to obtain specific information regarding capacity utilization of comparable companies and to grant adjustment for under-utilization after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Certain other grounds were decided based on previous orders in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P as a cooperative society, and Section 80P(4) does not apply. However, the assessee's argument regarding its status as a cooperative society versus an AOP was dismissed as premature, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the convenience fee retained by M/s. Bigtree was a margin charged from end customers for services provided to them, not a commission payable by the assessee. Therefore, Section 194H was not applicable as M/s. Bigtree did not act on behalf of the theatre owner.

The Tribunal held that if the agricultural land sold does not fall under Section 2(14) of the IT Act and was transferred as is, it cannot be considered a capital asset or an adventure in the nature of trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the additional evidence and grant relief under Section 54B if conditions are met.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in assuming jurisdiction to levy penalty as there was no enhancement of assessment by the CIT(A) and the AO had already initiated penalty proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to specify the exact ground for penalty initiation.