ITAT Bangalore Judgments — April 2023

The tribunal corrected an inadvertent error in the citation of a case mentioned in its previous order. The citation '392 ITR 0074 (Karnataka)' was substituted with the correct citation '395 ITR 611 (Karnataka)'.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had restricted the deduction under Chapter VIA to Rs. 2 lakh without intimating the assessee the reasons for doing so. In the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the files of the AO to examine the claim of the assessee raised in ground No. 3.1 and its sub-grounds. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee was not provided an opportunity to explain its claim before the restriction was imposed by the AO. Therefore, the AO is directed to re-examine the assessee's claim for deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 43,22,544. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the claim itself but rather remanded it for proper examination by the AO. No other grounds were decided on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether a banking company is liable for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB was not yet settled. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal restored this issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether a banking company is liable for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB was not yet settled. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal restored this issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether a banking company is liable for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB was not yet settled. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal restored this issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the valuer's report, which stated no sale instances were available to ascertain the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981, was incorrect. This finding suggests a flaw in the capital gains computation.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for proper representation. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to issue fresh notices and consider the assessee's written submissions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF made by the Revenue authorities was justified. This was based on the Supreme Court's ruling that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B operate differently, and failure to pay employee contributions within the respective Act's due dates results in permanent disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF made by the Revenue authorities was justified. This was based on the Supreme Court's ruling that Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B operate on different parameters regarding due dates for employee and employer contributions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed submissions and documents before the CIT(A) belatedly, which were not considered. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the commission payments.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order was passed ex-parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the NFAC for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its submissions.

The Tribunal held that carbon credits are capital receipts and not income for the assessment year 2012-13. The insertion of Section 115BBG from 01.04.2018 was considered prospective and not applicable to the period in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's bonafide belief regarding turnover calculation, supported by judicial precedents, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The penalty under Section 271B was deleted as the default was considered venial and no loss was caused to the exchequer.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was justified. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd v. JCIT, which clarified that employee's contribution to PF and ESI must be paid within the due dates specified in the respective Acts to be eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on investments and the disallowance of bad debts written off. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice was not rendered to the assessee and that the CIT(A) should have proceeded with the enquiry and passed an order on merits, rather than dismissing the appeal in limine. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not follow CBDT circulars regarding verification of cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding sufficient reason for its non-production earlier. The Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the Forms 15G/15H submitted by the assessee and afford an opportunity of being heard before deciding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the issue of double taxation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to claim deduction on interest earned from investments made with Karnataka District Co-operative Banks. This decision was based on a previous identical order for a different assessment year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on investments and the disallowance of bad debts written off. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the entire appeal due to merger. While the issue of TDS credit was part of the rectification order, the issues concerning interest under Section 234C and Section 244A were not.

The Tribunal held that the provisions for levying fee under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A were introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E at the time of processing TDS returns, as per Section 200A, were effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such a levy could not be made for statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E during the processing of TDS returns under Section 200A were introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such a fee could not be levied for statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E during the processing of TDS returns under Section 200A were introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such a fee could not be levied for statements filed prior to that date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E during the processing of TDS returns under Section 200A were introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no such fee could be levied for statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E during the processing of TDS returns under Section 200A were introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such a levy could not be made for statements filed prior to that date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E at the time of processing TDS returns, as per Section 200A(1)(c), (d), and (f), were effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such a levy could not be made for statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing for the levy of fee under Section 234E during the processing of TDS returns under Section 200A were introduced prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees could not be levied for statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E at the time of processing TDS returns, as per Section 200A(1)(c) to (f), were effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees could not be levied for statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the provisions allowing the levy of fee under Section 234E at the time of processing TDS returns, as per Section 200A(1)(c) to (f), were effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees could not be levied for statements filed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society on investments made with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also addressed the disallowance of trading profits, granting partial relief.

The Tribunal held that since the tax audit report was made available to the AO before the completion of assessment proceedings and there was no malafide intention, the penalty under Section 271B was not justified. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding ESOP expenses, the Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to the one decided in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following its own precedents and the decision in Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are not capital in nature and are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, thus allowable as a deduction. The disallowance was deleted. Regarding notional interest on delayed receivables from AEs, the Tribunal held that deferred receivables constitute an independent international transaction that needs to be benchmarked. It relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT v. AMD (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the ITAT Bangalore's decision in Swiss Re Global Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention for netting off outstanding payables to AEs to compute interest on net outstanding receivables. It concurred with the AO/TPO in taking 30 days as the normal credit period. For the rate of interest, it directed the AO/TPO to consider the EUR LIBOR prevalent during the financial year, as invoices were raised in EURO, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. The AO/TPO was directed to re-compute the upward adjustment. For other grounds, such as refund of excess tax on dividend distribution, disallowance of employee's contribution to PF, notional IND-AS adjustment, TDS/TCS credit, levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A, the judgment does not record specific findings or decisions. These issues appear to have been either not pressed, withdrawn, or not adjudicated upon in the provided extract. The operative direction for the notional interest on receivables was to re-compute the adjustment, leading to a partial allowance of that ground.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding ESOP expenses, the Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to the one decided in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following its own precedents and the decision in Novo Nordisk India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are not capital in nature and are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, thus allowable as a deduction. The disallowance was deleted. Regarding notional interest on delayed receivables from AEs, the Tribunal held that deferred receivables constitute an independent international transaction that needs to be benchmarked. It relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in PCIT v. AMD (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the ITAT Bangalore's decision in Swiss Re Global Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention for netting off outstanding payables to AEs to compute interest on net outstanding receivables. It concurred with the AO/TPO in taking 30 days as the normal credit period. For the rate of interest, it directed the AO/TPO to consider the EUR LIBOR prevalent during the financial year, as invoices were raised in EURO, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. The AO/TPO was directed to re-compute the upward adjustment. For other grounds, such as refund of excess tax on dividend distribution, disallowance of employee's contribution to PF, notional IND-AS adjustment, TDS/TCS credit, levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A, the judgment does not record specific findings or decisions. These issues appear to have been either not pressed, withdrawn, or not adjudicated upon in the provided extract. The operative direction for the notional interest on receivables was to re-compute the adjustment, leading to a partial allowance of that ground.

The Tribunal noted that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned. Since the AO had not clearly established if exempt income was earned, the issue was restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while written directions are ideal, the absence of them does not automatically disqualify the claim. It held that the issue needed further examination to determine if the donations were indeed voluntary and intended for the corpus fund, considering the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that filing a manual return within the due date, despite being a procedural irregularity, should be considered a valid return. The AO was directed to recompute the income based on this return and reconsider the addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory requirement and not a pre-condition for claiming foreign tax credit. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the case of Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna, allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it crucial for deciding the dispute. The Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the AO to consider these new evidences and decide afresh.

The Tribunal held that the manual filing of the appeal was within the limitation period and that the subsequent e-filing was in compliance with new rules. The NFAC's dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay was considered erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the source of the deposits. The explanation regarding the husband's dementia was not considered satisfactory. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 21,79,000/- reasonable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions were not considered before the impugned order was passed. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order under Section 154 was incorrect as it sought to rectify a debatable issue. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for prior years, the Tribunal found no mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining an additional ground of appeal in reassessment proceedings, as it was a new claim prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants, when directed by the State Government to be treated as additional grant or converted into State's equity for the project, is not to be considered as income of BMRCL. Such interest is to be capitalized and not treated as revenue receipt.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants, when directed by the State Government to be treated as additional grant or converted into State's equity for the project, is not to be considered as income of BMRCL. Such interest is to be capitalized and not treated as revenue receipt.