ITAT Bangalore Judgments — January 2024

The ITAT acknowledged that the assessee was not well-versed with the Income Tax Portal and missed digital notices. The tribunal granted an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that not all deposits during demonetization are unaccounted cash, but the burden is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the deposit. The assessee was directed to furnish details of depositors and the Assessing Officer was instructed to verify these details and grant a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's calculation of cost of funds was not based on a proper methodology. It observed that the calculation should be done on an average monthly basis considering deposits, interest paid, and investments. Therefore, the issue of allowing cost of funds and administrative expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, stating that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was a mistaken fact as the scheme was not applied to the issues concerning TDS non-deduction, penalty, and interest. The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the scope of Section 143(1) is limited to prima facie mistakes and that the non-filing of Form 10B electronically was not a basis for disallowing exemption when it was subsequently filed. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that they were not digitally savvy and failed to notice digitally issued notices. The Tribunal granted an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay violated principles of natural justice. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) to examine the delay and grant an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the bonafide reasons provided by the appellant, particularly their involvement in national development projects. The appeals were then remanded to the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to consider relevant Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the bonafide reasons provided by the appellant, particularly their involvement in national development projects. The appeals were then remanded to the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to consider relevant Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the calculation of cost of funds should be based on monthly averages of deposits, interest paid, and fixed deposit investments, rather than year-end figures. The issue of proportionate administrative expenditure was also to be considered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the bonafide reasons provided by the appellant, particularly their involvement in national development projects. The appeals were then remanded to the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to consider relevant Supreme Court decisions.

The ITAT restored the issues to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The AO was directed to follow necessary instructions regarding cash deposits during demonetization.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for consideration on merits, with directions to grant a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided cash book details and confirmations from depositors. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify these details and consider the claim accordingly. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for proper opportunity of hearing and physical hearing for the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for consideration on merits, with directions to grant a proper opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT acknowledged that the assessee was not well-versed with the Income Tax Portal and missed digital notices. The tribunal granted an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request for another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for consideration on merits, with directions to grant a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee's request for adjournment. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning disallowance under Section 14A for securities held as stock-in-trade was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investments vs. CIT. Following this precedent, the Tribunal observed that for banks holding shares as stock-in-trade, any dividend earned is incidental to the business activity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for consideration on merits, with directions to grant a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were not pressed and were dismissed. It allowed deduction for brand promotion and advertisement expenses, following its own previous orders. Sponsorship expenses were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It also acceded to the assessee's request for another opportunity before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings as not pressed. For TV airing, production, digital media, and advertisement expenses, the Tribunal noted that similar issues were covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, implying these would be decided based on those precedents. The claim for depreciation on goodwill was dismissed, and the issue of sponsorship expenses was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's calculation of cost of funds was not based on a proper methodology. It observed that the calculation should be done on an average monthly basis considering deposits, interest paid, and investments. Therefore, the issue of allowing cost of funds and administrative expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, stating that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was a mistaken fact as the scheme was not applied to the issues concerning TDS non-deduction, penalty, and interest. The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish details of depositors and evidence to substantiate the claim of past savings and drawings. The AO was instructed to verify these details and consider the claim accordingly. The assessee is to be given an opportunity for a physical hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient material to prove the payment was excessive or unreasonable. Following previous decisions in similar group cases, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's failure to represent before lower authorities resulted in no benefit and significant hardship. Therefore, the issues in dispute were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with a direction to grant a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to provide correct contact details and necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the payment for interior decoration was made by the assessee to her husband, who then incurred the expenditure. The Tribunal found that this expenditure was substantiated by bank statements and the agreement, and the assesse's husband was convinced about the interior decoration. Therefore, the expenditure was eligible for deduction under section 54.

The Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish specific details regarding cash deposits, including PAN and address of depositors, and instructed the AO to verify these details. The Tribunal acknowledged that not all demonetization deposits are unaccounted cash but placed the burden on the assessee to prove genuineness.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the amount in question was an opening balance from a previous assessment year and therefore could not be added as income in the current year. The Tribunal noted that a prior assessment order for AY 2013-14 had accepted the closing balance of this ledger account.

The Tribunal held that initiating a second Section 263 proceeding on the same issue after the first one was quashed is bad in law. Consequently, all subsequent consequential proceedings, including the disallowance of logo expenses, fall through.

The Tribunal held that for a Joint Commissioner to exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer, a specific direction under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act is necessary. In the absence of such a direction, the assessment order passed by the Joint Commissioner is invalid.

The Tribunal held that the challenge to the jurisdiction of the assessing authority was raised belatedly and was time-barred under Section 124(3) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee's contention was not accepted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the payments made were not in the nature of royalty or FTS as defined in the India-UK DTAA. The assessee only obtained a non-exclusive license to use the software, without acquiring any proprietary interest or copyright.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed business exigency for accepting cash loans from Directors, no material was furnished to prove this reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of whether there was a reasonable cause under Section 273B for the cash loans.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the AO to re-examine whether the assessee's books were audited as per the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and if the return was filed within the extended due date, to decide the 80P deduction on merits.

The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the Supreme Court's ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., held that the payments were not in the nature of FTS requiring tax deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in the name of a deceased person, supported by a death certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass a fresh order in the name of the legal heir after due notice.

The Tribunal held that the payments made were not in the nature of royalty or FTS as defined in the India-UK DTAA. The assessee only obtained a non-exclusive license to use the software, without acquiring any proprietary interest or copyright.

The Tribunal held that the payments were not FTS or royalty. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it was determined that the transactions constituted a sale of goods or license for use of software as part of an integrated system, not a transfer of copyright or technical know-how.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and NFAC, and did not respond to notices. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO for a fair opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity of hearing before the AO and the lack of proper participation before the NFAC, decided to remit the entire issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal acknowledged a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of technical expertise and poor advice. While acknowledging the delay, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to justify the cash deposits and the quantum of business income. The Tribunal decided to remit the issues to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee has a primary onus to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of loan transactions, the lower authorities did not conduct sufficient independent enquiry. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the NFAC/CIT(A) for further investigation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not represented itself properly before the lower authorities, leading to adverse orders. However, considering the potential for double addition and the need for proper verification, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not properly represented before the lower authorities, leading to the addition being sustained. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for reconsideration.