ITAT Bangalore Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1). Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities' conclusion was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient material, thus reversing the addition.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange loss on advance payments for fixed assets is capital in nature and not deductible as revenue expenditure, but allowed depreciation. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance should only consider investments yielding exempt income, and deleted the disallowance made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on investments in co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, as the character of the income does not change and it is considered 'income from other sources'. However, the cost of earning this interest income should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on investments in co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, as the character of the income does not change and it is considered 'income from other sources'. However, the cost of earning this interest income should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1). Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities' conclusion was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient material, thus reversing the addition.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1). Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities' conclusion was based on surmises and conjectures without sufficient material, thus reversing the addition.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on investments in co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, as the character of the income does not change and it is considered 'income from other sources'. However, the cost of earning this interest income should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on investments in co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, as the character of the income does not change and it is considered 'income from other sources'. However, the cost of earning this interest income should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on investments in co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, as the character of the income does not change and it is considered 'income from other sources'. However, the cost of earning this interest income should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on previous rulings and the jurisdictional High Court's decision on Section 200A. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on previous rulings. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on previous rulings and the jurisdictional High Court's decision on the prospective application of Section 200A amendments. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous rulings on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on previous rulings and the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on previous rulings and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) based on previous rulings and the jurisdictional High Court's decision regarding the prospective effect of Section 200A amendments. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing previous judgments on identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issue of applicability of Section 115JB and additions made thereunder to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, following a previous order in the assessee's own case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while gross receipts cannot be taxed, only net income is taxable. The matter was restored to the AO to allow allowable expenses incurred for earning income, as the trust lacked registration under Section 12AA.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to furnish written submissions and evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for this purpose.

The Tribunal restored the issue of applicability of Section 115JB and additions made thereunder to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, following a previous order in the assessee's own case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the fact of multiple beneficiaries was not presented to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of income considering the shares of the beneficiaries and also directed that TDS credit be given as per Form 26AS.

The Tribunal held that a corrected return filed in response to a defect notice relates back to the date of the original return. Therefore, the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit and was void ab initio.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine if the investments were made under compulsion of the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act. If so, the interest income would be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative had agreed to the addition during assessment proceedings, which prevented further inquiry by the AO. However, following a precedent where a similar situation led to a remand, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative had agreed to the addition during assessment proceedings, which prevented further inquiry by the AO. However, following a precedent where a similar situation led to a remand, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the remand report submitted by the AO, which had granted significant relief. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative had agreed to the addition during assessment proceedings, which prevented further inquiry by the AO. However, following a precedent where a similar situation led to a remand, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) issued notices on the registered email, but the assessee did not respond. Considering the prayer of the assessee and in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable as the cash deposits were outside the demonetization period. The selection of the case for scrutiny was based on incorrect reasons, violating limited scrutiny guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 was completed without jurisdiction as the notice should have been issued under Section 153A instead of 153C. For AY 2017-18, the income offered was to be treated as business income as per the revised return.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 was completed without jurisdiction as the notice should have been issued under Section 153A instead of 153C. For AY 2017-18, the income offered was to be treated as business income as per the revised return.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Revenue and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if paid within the due date of filing the return, is not eligible for deduction. The adjustment made under section 143(1) for such disallowance is also justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 was completed without jurisdiction as the notice should have been issued under Section 153A instead of 153C. For AY 2017-18, the income offered was to be treated as business income as per the revised return.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to the AO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, for Section 14A, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination, considering the assessee's arguments and evidence.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the employee contribution issue, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication. For the TDS issue, the tribunal held that TDS under Section 194H was not applicable to gateway payment charges.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to the AO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, for Section 14A, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination, considering the assessee's arguments and evidence.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to the AO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, for Section 14A, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination, considering the assessee's arguments and evidence.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to the AO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, for Section 14A, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination, considering the assessee's arguments and evidence.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to the AO for fresh adjudication. Similarly, for Section 14A, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination, considering the assessee's arguments and evidence.