ITAT Bangalore Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal held that payments made to NFS and Cash Tree for ATM usage charges are not subject to TDS and thus the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is deleted. Similarly, VISA charges are also not liable for TDS. The revenue's appeal is dismissed, and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that payments made to NFS and Cash Tree for ATM usage charges are not subject to TDS and thus the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is deleted. Similarly, VISA charges are also not liable for TDS. The revenue's appeal is dismissed, and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's claim for immunity from penalty under Section 270AA, noting that the conditions for filing Form 68 were met. The penalty proceedings were initiated based on disallowances that the assessee believed were permissible based on judicial precedents.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to have provided details of members and their transactions, it was also stated that only a random sample of members' details were uploaded due to their large number. The Tribunal found it necessary to decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if statutory, can be eligible for Section 80G deduction if it meets the conditions of Section 80G and is not specifically excluded. Denying the deduction would lead to double disallowance.

The Tribunal condoned the 43-day delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and decided to restore the matter to the AO for examination of this evidence, as the original assessment was made on a best judgment basis.

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the amounts reported by the assessee and the submissions made. The assessee claimed transactions of Rs. 33,19,760, while the AO made an addition of Rs. 54,52,400. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove that cross-examination was requested from the AO. Hence, the issue was remitted back to the AO for de novo reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of the assessee's business turnover and unsecured loans, and therefore, treating them as unexplained investment under Section 69A was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the authorities below had considered the income twice, leading to double taxation.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, as the assessee had filed a return and the tax liability was Nil due to brought forward losses. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal corrected the date of its previous order from July 21, 2024, to August 21, 2024. This correction was made to accurately reflect the pronouncement date of the judgment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It also noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the cases on merits and remitted the matters back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the assessment order. The delay was not intentional or deliberate, and no latches could be attributed to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of proper response in both assessment and appellate proceedings. Considering the prayer for re-verification and in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the 3-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the technical difficulties faced by the assessee in submitting documents online. While deprecating the assessee's non-cooperation, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A)/NFAC.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and was due to a misunderstanding by the assessee and their tax consultant, compounded by a search proceeding. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It also noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the cases on merits and remitted the matters back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal corrected the date of its previous order from July 21, 2024, to August 21, 2024. This correction was made to accurately reflect the pronouncement date of the judgment.

The Tribunal observed that the cash deposits were from earlier withdrawals made by the assessee, which were lying with him. The Tribunal noted that these transactions occurred before the demonetisation period, contrary to the AO's observation.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) cannot be made if payments are made due to business expediency and are genuine transactions with identifiable parties. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D for AY 2020-21 was granted without due application of mind, rendering the assessment invalid. For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the matter for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable as it was based solely on an excel sheet from a third party and statements of employees, without independent corroborative material. The Tribunal also noted the denial of the assessee and the lack of a proper opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay before the ITAT. While acknowledging the substantial delay before the CIT(A) and the assessee's non-cooperation, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding cash flow and withdrawals supporting the deposits. The Tribunal held that a meritorious case should not be dismissed on technical lapses and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) cannot be made if payments are made due to business expediency and are genuine transactions with identifiable parties. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D was indeed granted without due application of mind, rendering the assessment invalid. For the second appeal, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded it for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) cannot be made if payments are made due to business expediency and are genuine transactions with identifiable parties. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) cannot be made if payments are made due to business expediency and are genuine transactions with identifiable parties. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee's explanation and the available evidence regarding cash withdrawals. The Tribunal also observed inconsistencies in the findings of the lower authorities regarding the application of CBDT Circular 1916.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had inadvertently recorded facts and findings not originating from the assessment order. The Departmental Representative (DR) could not controvert the assessee's arguments. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had inadvertently recorded facts and findings not originating from the assessment order. The Departmental Representative (DR) could not controvert the assessee's arguments. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that reimbursements for computer and hardware maintenance are not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS). This decision followed previous rulings by the Karnataka High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Act and Rules, and therefore, the FTC cannot be disallowed for a procedural delay.

The Tribunal noted that while cash deposits themselves are not unexplained money, the assessee has the onus to prove the source. The assessee failed to do so, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without a scientific approach. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B is a procedural lapse and not a mandatory requirement that would vitiate the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal relied on previous High Court and ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including land ownership documents. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with notices from the AO and CIT(A) but decided to restore the matter for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that reimbursements for computer and hardware maintenance are not Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fees for Included Services (FIS). This decision followed previous rulings by the Karnataka High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal as they were pure questions of law. Regarding the main issue, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's verification of cash deposits during demonetization was not in accordance with CBDT circulars, necessitating a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal without issuing a defect notice and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) was inapplicable as the assessee had paid the consideration through banking channels and there was no cessation of liability. The reopening of assessment was also found to be bad in law for want of opportunity to cross-examine the third party.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence related to court cases concerning the property transactions and the addition for unexplained investment. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was completed ex-parte and the appeal was filed with a significant delay. However, considering the assessee's bona fide belief regarding the service of the assessment order and following the Apex Court's judgment in MST. Katiji, the delay was condoned. The matter was remitted to the CIT(Appeals) for decision on merits.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for denovo adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to conduct an inquiry into the discontinuance of business or dissolution of the firm and to give both parties an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was completed ex-parte and the appeal was filed with a significant delay. However, considering the assessee's bona fide belief regarding the service of the assessment order and following the Apex Court's judgment in MST. Katiji, the delay was condoned. The matter was remitted to the CIT(Appeals) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the disallowance of audit fee and pigmy commission as part of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the additional ground raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional ground on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the sale of software, whether customized or not, does not constitute royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P. Ltd. Consequently, receipts from software sales and related services are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the sale of software, whether customized or not, does not constitute royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P. Ltd. Consequently, receipts from software sales and related services are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the sale of software, whether customized or not, does not constitute royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P. Ltd. Consequently, receipts from software sales and related services are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was already decided on merits by allowing the appeal, the present appeal before the Tribunal became infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.