ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that the relaxation provisions under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxations and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) extended the due dates for filing returns and other compliances during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was noted that the assessee had consistently availed the concessional rate in previous years, which were accepted by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the denial of the concessional rate for AY 2023-24 was not justified.

The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. Additional evidence was admitted, and considering the lack of proper opportunity before the lower authorities, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were wrongly initiated under Section 147 of the Act, as the material found was seized during a search, and proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C of the Act. The initiation under Section 147 was found to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot decide an appeal without addressing its merits, citing a High Court judgment. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded the assessee could not represent its case effectively before the CIT(E) and that submissions might not have been considered. Consequently, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not submitted proof of approval before it. Considering the facts and the principle of real income theory, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance for delayed remittance of PF & ESI has been settled by higher courts. While the CIT(Appeals) condoned the delay, the assessee contested that a fair opportunity was not provided. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices before the lower authorities, possibly due to an incorrect email id. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration with a direction to issue notice on the correct email id.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(Appeals) condoned the delay, the grounds raised were not fully decided, and the assessee contended that a fair opportunity was not provided. The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without granting adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering the submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is mandatory for determining the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. However, the AO erred by considering all investments instead of only those in which exempt income was received.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the issue of entitlement to deduction under Section 80P needs to be considered by the lower authorities, and that bank credits cannot be presumed unexplained. Therefore, the matters were restored to the assessing officer for fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the issue for AY 2017-18 related to cash deposits during demonetization, which the AO had not examined according to CBDT instructions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination with cogent materials, and the assessee was directed to participate.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to file returns and participate in proceedings, as well as the inordinate delay in filing appeals. However, considering the issue of demonetization period cash deposits and the AO's failure to examine them under specific CBDT instructions, the matter was remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is not solely controlled by the delay in filing Form 67. Following the precedents of coordinate benches, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to take cognizance of the filed Form 67 and grant FTC.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and the settlement under the VSV Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that credits in bank accounts cannot be presumed unexplained and that the issue of deduction under Section 80P requires consideration by lower authorities. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) order merely relied on the AO's observations without deciding the assessee's contentions based on the material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not provided with a proper hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) had relied on the AO's observations without deciding the assessee's contentions on merits and without granting a hearing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the civil court's order cancelling the sale deed came after the assessment order. The CIT(A) did not grant sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination, with directions for the AO to grant a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and fixed deposit certificates, to prove the genuineness of the loans received through banking channels. The Tribunal also noted that the amounts from the three other lenders were below the threshold for taxability for the lenders.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should provide a proper opportunity to the assessee and consider the case afresh. The assessee was directed to file necessary documents to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence and considered the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the nature and source of cash deposits, which were found to be loan repayments. The grounds raised by the revenue were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including planning, development, and allotment of sites/flats, are charitable in nature and do not fall under trade, commerce, or business as per Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the predominant object is key and surplus generation does not automatically negate charitable status.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a genuine and inadvertent mistake by the tax consultant's office staff, not willful or deliberate. The assessee should not suffer for a fault beyond their control.

The Tribunal held that the delay was due to a genuine and inadvertent mistake, not a willful or deliberate act, and that the assessee should not suffer due to the tax consultant's negligence. The principle of natural justice requires that genuine cases not be dismissed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68 were not sustainable as the assessee did not maintain books of account. The disallowance of interest under Section 37 was also deemed unsustainable as the reassessment proceedings themselves were rendered infructuous due to the AO's failure to challenge the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on the basis of the reasons for reopening. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening were not substantiated and were contrary to the CIT(A)'s findings, which remained unchallenged.

The Tribunal held that for Section 68 addition, it is a pre-condition that a sum must be credited in the books of account, which was not maintained by the assessee. The addition for interest payment under Section 37 was also held to be unsustainable as the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable on the basis of reasons recorded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, being those of a statutory urban development authority, are charitable in nature and not trade or business. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 is unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under section 68 was not sustainable as the assessee had not maintained any books of account. The addition for interest payment under section 37 was also deleted. The reassessment proceedings were considered infructuous and invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and not trade, commerce, or business. The fees collected were intrinsic to statutory responsibilities and aimed at public welfare, not profit generation. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including development and fee collection, were for planned urban development and a social objective, not profit-making. Relying on previous judgments, including a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal found the activities charitable and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the PCIT under the second proviso to Section 143(3) was invalid as the provision was introduced after the relevant assessment year. Furthermore, the PCIT wrongly applied the amended provisions of Section 12AB(4) retrospectively, which were not in force at the time of the alleged violations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical reasons and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act was not sustainable as the assessee had not maintained books of account. The addition on account of interest payment under Section 37 was also deleted. The reassessment proceedings were considered infructuous and invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a charitable trust, deserved another opportunity to present their case. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted Form-2 under the VSV Scheme and the Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the issue was being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a genuine and inadvertent mistake and not willful negligence. The assessee should not suffer for the lapse of the tax consultant's office. The principle of natural justice requires genuine cases not to be dismissed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) passed their orders without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case, violating principles of natural justice. Notices were sent to incorrect email addresses, and orders were passed prematurely.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-appearance was not wilful or wanton, as the trust office was closed for winter holidays during the notice period. The CIT(E)'s rejection order was set aside.