ITAT Bangalore Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity by the AO to present documents and explanations, and the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case and documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already approached the authorities to settle the issue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that Form 2 had been issued. Given this, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, noting that the matter was decided ex-parte and the merits were not considered. The case was remitted to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the documents and hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were provided, the assessee could not submit the required documents. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for not appearing before the AO and CIT(A) due to severe medical conditions and issues with her consultant not relaying notices. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that as per Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, an appeal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of Form 2. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to reinstate it if the DTVSV application is not accepted for any reason.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A) with supporting documents. The Tribunal warned that no further leniency would be provided if the requirement is not met.

The Tribunal found that charging fees for imparting education in an art form does not necessarily make the activity commercial. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was registered under Section 12AB and was involved in charitable activities. A discrepancy in the financial statement was observed, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case with necessary documents, considering the reasons for non-appearance due to the wife's illness.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without issuing a show-cause notice or specifying the mismatched activities. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities, including relief to the poor, education, medical relief, and public utility, were in accordance with its objects.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s rejection of the delay condonation application was incorrect, considering the minimal delay and the explanation provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A) with supporting documents. The Tribunal warned that no further leniency would be provided if the requirement is not met.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A) with supporting documents. The Tribunal warned that no further leniency would be provided if the requirement is not met.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay, as hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email ID despite a different one being provided. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's genuine financial difficulties and administrative challenges that led to non-prosecution, decided to grant one more opportunity. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that rejection of the application on mere technicalities, without considering the charitable nature of the activities or affording an opportunity of being heard, is not justified. The Tribunal condoned the technical mistake and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal held that rejection of the application on mere technicalities, without considering the charitable nature of the activities or affording an opportunity of being heard, is not justified. The Tribunal condoned the technical mistake and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that it had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had filed Form No. 1 for the assessment year 2020-21. The learned Departmental Representative for the revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the dispute was not settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed without sufficient opportunity to the assessee and on surmises. The CIT(A) also failed to provide an opportunity to file additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that since the dispute was being resolved under the VSV Scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the conditions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were met. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the cash sales as bogus solely based on high volume and lack of customer addresses, especially considering the extraordinary circumstances of demonetization. The Tribunal noted that PAN was not mandatory for transactions below ₹2 lakhs and that the VAT department accepted the invoices.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable because the receipt was from debtors and not in the nature of unexplained money, bullion, or jewelry. The Tribunal further held that the unaccounted receipt should be added as income under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below had not considered the records/evidences in detail and therefore, the entire issue in dispute is remitted to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee is a senior citizen with health issues who could not actively respond. It also observed a mismatch in the VAT return turnover. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte orders by both the AO and CIT(A) meant the case's merits were not decided. Acknowledging the assessee's claim about consultant negligence but also their own lack of follow-up, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of the loan for charitable purposes is an application of income, especially since the loan was shown as income in the year of borrowing and the amendment disallowing such claims is prospective. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, books of accounts are not required, and therefore, additions based on alleged bogus purchases or undisclosed investments without corroborative evidence were not tenable. The Tribunal also noted that fixed deposits were made through banking channels.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of the Section 68 addition back to the AO for further verification, stipulating that no addition should be made if the assessee provides details proving the deposits were from members. Regarding the Section 80P deduction, the Tribunal reversed the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the revenue's ground and restoring the AO's order of disallowance, citing the amended Section 80AC(ii) and the assessee's delayed return filing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO and that the documents/records considered by the CIT(A) were not additional evidence as they were produced before the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeal partly.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the issue of disallowance under Section 14A, stating no exempt income was earned. The disallowance on account of fire loss was allowed as expenditure under Section 37(1). The issue regarding disallowance of Rs.17,06,204 was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had no title or right in the property CTS 1297, and therefore, could not have relinquished any right. The transaction was considered a sale against an advance payment, not an exchange attracting capital gains. Additions based on alleged dumb notings and loose sheets were also questioned.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's reasons for the delay were genuine and that the issue of foreign tax credit disallowance needed to be decided on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that ICDS-II clause 22, when read with clauses 4 and 5, implies that opening stock valuation should be inclusive of taxes and duties and applies to all years, not just transitional ones. The AO's interpretation to apply it only to closing stock was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's reasons for the delay were genuine and that the issue of foreign tax credit disallowance needed to be decided on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the VSV Scheme and dismissed the appeal. It was clarified that the appeal could be restored if the settlement was deemed invalid.

The tribunal noted that the assessee is settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and Form-2 has been issued. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1.57 crore related to an advance for property sale was to be deleted due to supporting documentary evidence. The additions for cash deposits in other banks were also set aside, finding sufficient justification from cash withdrawals and other receipts. However, ₹10 lakh out of ₹12.45 lakh added as commission income was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was settling the dispute under the VSV Scheme and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the issue was being resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the non-issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) and the AO's recourse to section 144 without proper preconditions. The delay in e-verification was condoned, and the return was considered valid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on technical grounds (delay) without adjudicating on merits. Considering the assessee's condition, the Tribunal granted another opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a nominal cost of Rs. 500 was imposed due to the unexplained delay of 142 days, allowing the assessee another chance to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence that the expenses were directly linked to charitable activities or that the recipient entity was registered under Section 12A. However, it found that funds lying in bank accounts and existing FDRs free from lien could be treated as investments or deposits as per Section 11(5) and Section 11(2)(b) respectively.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence that the expenses were directly linked to charitable activities or that the recipient entity was registered under Section 12A. However, it found that funds lying in bank accounts and existing FDRs free from lien could be treated as investments or deposits as per Section 11(5) and Section 11(2)(b) respectively.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee selected a wrong code due to a technical glitch in the application form. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee a chance to correct the error and directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not properly represented her case before the lower authorities and granted one more opportunity. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of proper representation and response before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A), with a warning against future non-compliance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that an assessment order framed against a non-existent entity, whose amalgamation was known and acknowledged by the tax authorities, is void ab initio. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Mahagun Realtors, where the department was unaware of the amalgamation.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of GIS charges for software licenses did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as no technical knowledge or skill was transferred to the Indian entities. The AO and DRP erred in mischaracterizing these receipts as FTS.