ITAT Bangalore Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years, the ITAT had allowed similar expenditure as revenue expenditure. Following this precedent and in the absence of any distinguishing facts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed the order before the issue of a relevant CBDT circular regarding condoning delays in filing Form 10B. Considering the circular and cited judgments, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration, ensuring the assessee is given a sufficient opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct expenses incurred in earning interest income from co-operative banks under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act. However, the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate these expenses with evidence.

The Tribunal held that while income from deposits with cooperative societies may be eligible for deduction, income from deposits with cooperative banks, especially those holding an RBI license and functioning like commercial banks, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) due to the exclusion provided by Section 80P(4). However, if the deposits were made due to a statutory compulsion under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, the income might be considered business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal condoned the short delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the audit report. The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated a reasonable cause for the failure as per Section 273B, considering it was the first year of audit and the assessee was unaware of the due dates.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had co-equal powers with the AO and was justified in examining additional evidence. The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) to the AO for de-novo consideration, directing verification of interest/dividend income from co-operative societies and allowing relief under Section 57 for interest from banks.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file proper submissions with evidence before the CIT(A) and the AO's additions were based on evidence. However, considering the interest of justice and equity, and the assessee's claim of not being aware of appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years, the ITAT had allowed similar expenditure as revenue expenditure. Following this precedent and in the absence of any distinguishing facts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the deductibility of interest income under Section 80P was highly debatable, especially considering the pendency of SLPs and conflicting High Court decisions at the time. Therefore, penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had co-equal powers with the AO and was justified in examining additional evidence. The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) to the AO for de-novo consideration, directing verification of interest/dividend income from co-operative societies and allowing relief under Section 57 for interest from banks.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the closing stock of eggs, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of purchases and subsequent sales. The addition for suppression in closing stock of maize was also deleted as the AO's reasoning was based on a statistical analysis without merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 51 days for AY 2018-19 and 34 days for AY 2019-20, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-service of notices by the CIT(A) and requested an opportunity to respond. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's advanced age and the apparent strength of the case on merits. The Tribunal found that the CPC likely made a double addition of income, which was not verified by the authorities below.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct expenses incurred in earning interest income from co-operative banks under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act. However, the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate these expenses with evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium has been declared. Under Section 14 of the IBC, no suits can continue against the corporate debtor during the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, even if retracted, can form the basis of assessment if not supported by convincing evidence. The burden to prove the admission was wrong lies with the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 51 days for AY 2018-19 and 34 days for AY 2019-20, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct expenses incurred in earning interest income from co-operative banks under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act. However, the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate these expenses with evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report due to the unforeseen departure of the accountant and the partner's illness. The penalty was considered a technical breach without any loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the deductibility of interest income under Section 80P was highly debatable, especially considering the pendency of SLPs and conflicting High Court decisions at the time. Therefore, penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was not warranted.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and the audit report, but condoned the delay in filing the appeal itself. However, it was held that the delay in filing the statutory Form 10B could not be condoned by the appellate authority and that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 11 due to non-compliance with the mandatory filing requirements. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the file to the AO to consider the condonation petition pending before the CIT(Exemptions).

The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for the quantum appeals, remitting the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271B, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that penalty under this section cannot be levied if books of account are not maintained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee trust was eligible for exemption under Section 11 for the assessment year in question, as its registration under Section 12AA was granted while assessment proceedings were pending, and its activities remained consistent. The rental income was therefore to be treated as income derived from property held under trust.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. In this case, the revenue failed to demonstrate any incriminating material related to the rental income, and the AO's addition was based on pre-existing records and FMV estimation, which is not sufficient for an addition in an unabated assessment year.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not received hearing notices due to incorrect email ID being used, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The assessee undertook to appear before the CIT(A) if given another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. In this case, the revenue failed to demonstrate any incriminating material related to the rental income, and the AO's addition was based on pre-existing records and FMV estimation, which is not sufficient for an addition in an unabated assessment year.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for penalties paid to RBI as deductible expenditure under Section 37, relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions. The issue of sundry assets written off was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for the quantum appeals, remitting the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271B, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that penalty under this section cannot be levied if books of account are not maintained.

The Tribunal held that the issue of interest income eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no longer res-integra in light of the High Court's judgment in Totgars Society. Therefore, the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was dismissed. However, the Tribunal considered the income to be taxable under 'income from other sources' and allowed the cost attributable to such income under section 57.

The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for the quantum appeals, remitting the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271B, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that penalty under this section cannot be levied if books of account are not maintained.

The Tribunal held that the issue of interest income eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no longer res-integra in light of the High Court's judgment in Totgars Society. Therefore, the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was dismissed. However, the Tribunal considered the income to be taxable under 'income from other sources' and allowed the cost attributable to such income under section 57.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not record any satisfaction with respect to the twin charges for penalty. The penalty notice was found to be defective, similar to the case cited from the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to substantiate their legal arguments and merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not submit the details due to circumstances beyond their control, despite holding 80G recognition since 2008. Granting one more opportunity would not prejudice any party.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, considering the ex-parte assessment and the lack of independent verification by the AO. The matter was remanded to the AO for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. However, the judgment does not provide the final decision on the merits of the case regarding the adjustment under Section 36(1)(va) or other grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay attributable to the COVID period and also the remaining delay of 97 days due to the Managing Partner being a Senior Citizen. The case was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, considering the ex-parte assessment and the lack of independent verification by the AO. The matter was remanded to the AO for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to produce documents and that an employee had left the company. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for denovo consideration, with a cost imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue of interest income eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no longer res-integra in light of the High Court's judgment in Totgars Society. Therefore, the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was dismissed. However, the Tribunal considered the income to be taxable under 'income from other sources' and allowed the cost attributable to such income under section 57.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a senior citizen, had received retirement benefits of Rs.20,38,444 which were deposited in his bank account. Considering the substantial withdrawals made before demonetization and the assessee's age, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not received hearing notices due to incorrect email ID being used, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The assessee undertook to appear before the CIT(A) if given another opportunity.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not passed the order in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, and sufficient opportunity may not have been granted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.

The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for the quantum appeals, remitting the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271B, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that penalty under this section cannot be levied if books of account are not maintained.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,30,000 as alleged income from house property was unsustainable. It was noted that the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found to warrant additions under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the issue of interest income eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no longer res-integra in light of the High Court's judgment in Totgars Society. Therefore, the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was dismissed. However, the Tribunal considered the income to be taxable under 'income from other sources' and allowed the cost attributable to such income under section 57.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for penalties paid to RBI as deductible expenditure under Section 37, relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions. The issue of sundry assets written off was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee regarding their employees' unfamiliarity with online procedures. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide details of cash sources and member KYC.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for penalties paid to RBI as deductible expenditure under Section 37, relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions. The issue of sundry assets written off was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of FTC cannot be denied if claimed in a revised return, especially when Form 67 is filed. It followed previous judgments stating that filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and DTAA provisions override the Act and Rules.