ITAT Bangalore Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act. It also found that the loss claimed on the sale of land was a genuine business loss arising from contractual obligations, not a paper loss.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80P for income from regular members, restoring the issue to the AO for calculation. The addition under Section 68 for SBN deposits was deleted, following a previous ITAT decision.

The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds received by the assessee on the sale of software licenses cannot be categorized as 'Royalty' within the meaning of the DTAA. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court had concluded that distribution agreements/EULAs in such cases do not create any interest or right in distributors/end-users that would amount to the use of or right to use any copyright. Consequently, the provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 9(1)(vi), were not applicable as they were not more beneficial to the assessees. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court had also ruled in favour of the assessee on similar grounds, citing the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition made as 'royalty' income. The grounds related to interest under Sections 234A and 234B, and the adjustment of refund, were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt but would likely be consequential to the primary decision.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act. It also found that the loss claimed on the sale of land was a genuine business loss arising from contractual obligations, not a paper loss.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act. It also found that the loss claimed on the sale of land was a genuine business loss arising from contractual obligations, not a paper loss.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act. It also found that the loss claimed on the sale of land was a genuine business loss arising from contractual obligations, not a paper loss.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the search cannot be questioned before it due to a retrospective amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act. It also found that the loss claimed on the sale of land was a genuine business loss arising from contractual obligations, not a paper loss.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (A) erred in upholding the assessment without considering the assessee's written submissions and case laws. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed exemption under Section 54F, which was supported by evidence, and that the AO should have considered the claim even if initially made under the wrong section.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest income was earned from cooperative banks that do not hold a license under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. If such is the case, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is to be allowed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds for adjudication as they involved a preliminary legal issue and no fresh facts were required. However, after considering the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined the issue in light of CBDT instructions regarding demonetization period deposits. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the department due to the non-production of satisfaction notes. It held that the recording of satisfaction by the AO is a mandatory requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, and its absence vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the department due to the non-production of satisfaction notes. It held that the absence of these notes, which are mandatory for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, rendered the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the department due to the non-production of satisfaction notes. It held that the recording of satisfaction by the AO is a mandatory requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, and its absence vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the department due to the non-production of satisfaction notes. It held that the recording of satisfaction by the AO is a mandatory requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, and its absence vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to remand the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the claim of deduction under Section 57 after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present the required documents.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in allowing cost of funds on an ad-hoc basis without legal basis. The assessee's detailed working for cost of funds was not refuted and should be accepted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was restored to the AO to examine the issue afresh after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The matter was restored to the AO for furnishing necessary details.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee had not been able to present its case properly. The Tribunal remanded the issue of cash deposits to the AO for fresh verification, considering relevant CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the source of cash deposit to be too far-fetched due to the lengthy time gap. However, it was of the view that the entire addition was not warranted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and decided to remand the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the claim of deduction under Section 57 after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present the required documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's representative did not appear before lower authorities, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was sufficiently explained by withdrawals made over time was devoid of merit and to be rejected. The CIT(A) had found that the cash withdrawals from ATMs between November 2013 and September 2015 were of small amounts, often as low as Rs. 300, and were made from various locations, indicating they were for meeting personal expenses. The CIT(A) also noted that these withdrawals stopped abruptly in September 2015 and the manner in which the alleged cash was kept was not explained. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had put forward a self-serving, preposterous, and unbelievable story. Regarding the argument that section 69 uses 'may' and not 'shall', the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not clearly established the source of the cash deposit from any particular head of income, thus justifying the AO's assessment under section 69. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the gross agricultural receipts were accepted, the expenditure incurred out of these receipts has a definite source and cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished sufficient details, but these were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted a violation of natural justice and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, considering a similar case, decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee is directed to provide a detailed cash flow statement explaining the source of the cash deposit.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts from the contract should be treated as business income. It accepted the assessee's offer of 6% profit on one part of the turnover and directed that 8.5% net profit should be adopted for the remaining turnover, considering past trends and the absence of books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that once the AO accepted the returned income based on total turnover, the same turnover could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. Therefore, the entire sales reported by the assessee were considered business sales.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to furnish written submissions before the CIT(A) and therefore, the matter should be restored to the AO to provide one more opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sought an adjournment for the last hearing. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee, and the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals were adequately explained by the assessee's intention to purchase agricultural land, and the subsequent redeposit was justified as the deal did not materialize. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-response to CIT(A) notices, decided to provide one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Revenue and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's attitude, granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for limited examination of the Section 54F deduction claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's circumstances and the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a proper hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration due to the assessee's explanation of family disputes preventing her from appearing. The assessee was directed to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the interest of justice, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to file necessary documents and be heard.

The Tribunal noted that Rule 22 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, mandates deducting accrued but unrealized interest from gross profits. The assessee's argument that this rule should be followed was accepted, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that Form 16 clearly indicated entitlement to deduction under section 80C and housing loan interest. These deductions were not considered by the AO or CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that if the investments were made out of statutory compulsions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the interest income would be considered business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The issue was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of post-sales discounts as it was a matter of reconciliation and not suppression of sales. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow lease rentals as revenue expenditure, considering the nature of the lease agreement and relevant judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent its case. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of post-sales discounts as it was a matter of reconciliation and not suppression of sales. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow lease rentals as revenue expenditure, considering the nature of the lease agreement and relevant judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, as Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC for delay. It also reiterated that DTAA provisions override the Act and Rules.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the general rule that delayed remittances are not deductible, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to verify if the employees' PF contribution was actually paid within the due date, despite a potential error in the audit report.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) before passing the appellate orders. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) before passing the appellate orders. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) before passing the appellate orders. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the sale of shares could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the assessee had provided explanations and evidence. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the transaction was a colorable device or intended for tax evasion.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's undertaking to provide documentary evidence, restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents to substantiate its claims.