ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2025

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 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 while the issue of delayed remittance is settled by higher courts, the assessee contended they were not given a fair opportunity by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, directing that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be provided.

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 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 noted that while the issue of delayed remittance is settled by higher courts, the assessee contended they were not given a fair opportunity by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 application for withdrawal and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 found that the CIT(Exemption) did not appreciate the assessee's submissions and did not provide a hearing notice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not appreciate the assessee's submissions and did not provide a hearing notice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

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 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 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 decided the additional ground regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 versus Section 153A/153C as infructuous in view of their findings on merit. Regarding the addition for unexplained cash receipts (Issue 2), the Tribunal held that the additions were based on uncorroborated loose slips. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Common Cause vs. Union of India and others, which held that entries in loose papers/sheets are not "books of accounts" and lack evidentiary value under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Tribunal deleted the additions made in all assessment years towards alleged unaccounted cash payments. For the addition of Rs. 36 lakhs towards interest on advances to Om Sai Riddhi Siddhi Developers (Issue 3) for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the advance was made due to commercial expediency as it was a sister concern. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal found that the money was advanced for the business purpose of the sister concern, and not advancing it would have led to the assessee borrowing money and incurring additional expenditure. Therefore, no notional interest could be disallowed. This ground was allowed. The operative directions were to delete the additions related to cash payments and allow the ground concerning interest on advances.

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 has not yet decided the issues as the provided text is only the cause title and the beginning of the judgment. The Tribunal has noted the parties involved, the assessment years, and the nature of the appeals. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for each issue are not available in the given excerpt. Therefore, no operative directions have been issued, and no issue has been expressly left undecided. The Tribunal is yet to hear the arguments and render its decision on the merits of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration was invalid because the AO's satisfaction was borrowed and the PCIT applied amended provisions retrospectively. The Tribunal found legal infirmities in the AO's reference and the retrospective application of law.

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, 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 held that the additions were made purely on assumptions and presumptions based on loose sheets, and the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate the inflow/outflow of money. The Tribunal also noted that similar additions in the director's case were deleted and that the company's financials were audited.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked if the assessee has not maintained any books of account. Furthermore, subsequent additions made by the AO, which were not part of the original reasons for reopening, are also not sustainable.

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision in a similar case and a Supreme Court judgment, held that the assessee's activities as a statutory authority fulfilling public duties, even with fee collection, do not constitute trade or business. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made purely on assumptions and presumptions based on loose sheets, without substantiating the inflow/outflow of money. Furthermore, similar additions in the director's case were deleted, and the assessee had retracted its confession.

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 reassessment proceedings were infructuous and invalid because the Assessing Officer's (AO) reasons for reopening the assessment were not supported by the evidence and the CIT(A)'s findings, which were contrary to the AO's reasons, remained unchallenged by the revenue. Consequently, additions made based on these proceedings were deleted.

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision in a similar case (Bangalore Development Authority), held that the assessee's activities as a statutory authority fulfilling public duties, even with fee collection, do not constitute trade or business. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

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.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were infructuous and invalid because the Assessing Officer's (AO) reasons for reopening the assessment were not supported by the evidence and the CIT(A)'s findings, which were contrary to the AO's reasons, remained unchallenged by the revenue. Consequently, additions made based on these proceedings were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were infructuous and invalid because the Assessing Officer's (AO) reasons for reopening the assessment were not supported by the evidence and the CIT(A)'s findings, which were contrary to the AO's reasons, remained unchallenged by the revenue. Consequently, additions made based on these proceedings were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were infructuous and invalid because the Assessing Officer's (AO) reasons for reopening the assessment were not supported by the evidence and the CIT(A)'s findings, which were contrary to the AO's reasons, remained unchallenged by the revenue. Consequently, additions made based on these proceedings were deleted.

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case and the Supreme Court's ruling in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, held that the assessee's activities were not in the nature of trade and were charitable. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

The Tribunal decided the additional ground regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 versus Section 153A/153C as infructuous in view of their findings on merit. Regarding the addition for unexplained cash receipts (Issue 2), the Tribunal held that the additions were based on uncorroborated loose slips. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Common Cause vs. Union of India and others, which held that entries in loose papers/sheets are not "books of accounts" and lack evidentiary value under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Tribunal deleted the additions made in all assessment years towards alleged unaccounted cash payments. For the addition of Rs. 36 lakhs towards interest on advances to Om Sai Riddhi Siddhi Developers (Issue 3) for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the advance was made due to commercial expediency as it was a sister concern. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal found that the money was advanced for the business purpose of the sister concern, and not advancing it would have led to the assessee borrowing money and incurring additional expenditure. Therefore, no notional interest could be disallowed. This ground was allowed. The operative directions were to delete the additions related to cash payments and allow the ground concerning interest on advances.

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision in a similar case and a Supreme Court judgment, held that the assessee's activities as a statutory authority fulfilling public duties, even with fee collection, do not constitute trade or business. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked if the assessee has not maintained books of account, as it requires a sum to be credited in the books. Furthermore, subsequent additions made during reassessment proceedings, which were not part of the original reasons for reopening, are not sustainable.

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 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 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.