ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) is not sustainable as it was not passed in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had granted some relief to the assessee, but the AO, in the final assessment order dated 27/06/2024, failed to incorporate this relief and upheld the adjustments made by the TPO. This contravention of the DRP's directions, which are binding on the AO as per section 144C(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, renders the assessment order void-ab-initio. The Tribunal noted that the TPO passed the order giving effect to the DRP's directions on 08/07/2024, which was after the AO passed the final assessment order on 27/06/2024, indicating the AO proceeded without awaiting the TPO's order. Relying on its own precedents and the High Court's observations in similar cases, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment order. As the assessment was quashed on technical grounds, the grounds raised by the assessee on merit were dismissed as infructuous. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked clear reasoning and proper evaluation of the disallowances. Considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to furnish evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 1000/- payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Market Linked Debentures are not among the specified assets eligible for the concessional 10% tax rate under Section 112A of the Income Tax Act. The benefits of Section 112A are restricted to equity shares, equity-oriented funds, and business trusts, explicitly excluding debentures. Therefore, the 20% tax rate applied by the authorities under Section 112 on LTCG from MLDs was correct.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the detailed statement of facts filed by the assessee and erroneously dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish supporting documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the issues were being resolved under the VSV Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were in the process of settling disputes under the VSV Scheme and had filed necessary documentation. The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose and thus dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the hybrid/mixed system of accounting followed by the assessee did not violate Section 145 of the Act. The AO's additions on account of disallowing interest income from various advances and investments were accordingly deleted or upheld based on specific findings.

The Tribunal held that the hybrid/mixed system of accounting followed by the assessee did not violate Section 145 of the Act. The AO's additions on account of disallowing interest income from various advances and investments were accordingly deleted or upheld based on specific findings.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from statutory deposits, which were mandated by the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act and not freely available for the society's business operations, was attributable to the business income. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the hybrid/mixed system of accounting followed by the assessee did not violate Section 145 of the Income Tax Act. The AO's disallowances were accordingly reviewed.

The Tribunal held that the hybrid/mixed system of accounting followed by the assessee did not violate Section 145 of the Act. The AO's additions on account of disallowing interest income from various advances and investments were accordingly deleted or upheld based on specific findings.

On the first issue, the Tribunal held that the AO erred in making an addition on account of TP adjustment in the SWD segment without considering the rectification order dated July 12, 2024, issued by the TPO. The Tribunal noted that the TPO had deleted the entire TP adjustment in the SWD segment in the rectification order, but the AO failed to consider this while passing the final assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the rectified giving-effect order and delete the entire adjustment in the SWD segment. This ground of appeal was allowed. On the second issue concerning the trading segment, the judgment indicates that the Tribunal considered the submissions and examined the records, but the detailed findings and decision for this issue are omitted in the provided text. However, the concluding remarks suggest that the appeal was partly allowed. On the third issue regarding the long-term capital gain adjustment, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to rebut the adjustment. If the rebuttal is found as per law, the adjustment shall be deleted. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. On the fourth issue of TDS credit, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for verification and to allow the credit as per law, as the deducting entity merged with the assessee. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. The fifth issue regarding interest under sections 234C and 234A was dismissed as infructuous as it was consequential in nature. The operative direction for the SWD segment was to delete the adjustment. For the LTCG and TDS credit, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from statutory deposits, which were mandated by the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act and not freely available for the society's business operations, was attributable to the business income. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the issue had indeed been rectified by the CIT(A) through a subsequent order. Therefore, as requested by the assessee's AR, the Tribunal was inclined to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have granted more opportunities for the assessee to present their case, especially considering no one appeared before the AO either. The matter was remitted to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 213 days in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the hybrid/mixed system of accounting followed by the assessee did not violate Section 145 of the Act. The AO's additions on account of disallowing interest income from various advances and investments were accordingly deleted or upheld based on specific findings.

The Tribunal held that the hybrid/mixed system of accounting followed by the assessee did not violate Section 145 of the Act. The AO's additions on account of disallowing interest income from various advances and investments were accordingly deleted or upheld based on specific findings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee before rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and dismissed it without proper consideration, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence provided by the assessee, which included cash book extracts, crucial for deciding the issue of unexplained deposits. The interest income addition was also set aside due to potential double addition.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether testing charges constituted FTS or royalty required further examination by the Assessing Officer (AO). Similarly, the taxability of management fees was restored to the AO for fresh consideration, particularly regarding the plea of reimbursement of global costs. The revenue's appeal concerning software payments was dismissed on grounds of consistency.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of hearing due to notices being sent to a former employee's email address. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148A(1)(d) for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, following judgments of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court concerning the interpretation of Section 149 and its proviso. The proceedings were quashed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal decided to restore the issues concerning testing charges and management fees to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination. The Tribunal noted that it was unclear whether the expenses were subcontracting charges or testing charges, and that the legal meaning of these terms differs. It also observed that the AO needed to examine the facts in light of documentary evidence to determine if foreign entities made knowledge available to the assessee. Regarding royalty, the AO was directed to re-examine whether testing charges are in the nature of royalty, considering the assessee's contention of paying separate royalty for trademark use to another AE and the fact that customers use the trademark only after testing by UL USA. For management fees, the Tribunal found that the assessee's alternate plea of reimbursement of global costs was not raised before the AO and not dealt with judiciously by the CIT(A), hence restored to the AO for fresh examination. For the revenue's appeal on software payments, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had held reimbursement of software expenses as not taxable, and the department had not filed an appeal against that order. Applying the rule of consistency, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, rendering the issue of whether payments are royalty academic. The appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of CSR expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act is independent of the eligibility for deduction under Section 80G. It further clarified that donations made to approved institutions under Section 80G qualify for deduction even if incurred under a statutory obligation like CSR.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of CSR expenditure under Section 37(1) is independent of the eligibility for deduction under Section 80G. It also clarified that approvals under Section 80G obtained after October 1, 2009, are valid in perpetuity unless withdrawn, addressing the CIT(A)'s concern about approvals.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether testing charges constituted FTS or royalty required further examination by the Assessing Officer (AO). Similarly, the taxability of management fees was restored to the AO for fresh consideration, particularly regarding the plea of reimbursement of global costs. The revenue's appeal concerning software payments was dismissed on grounds of consistency.

The Tribunal noted that as per the DTVSV Scheme, pending appeals are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate. Since the certificate was issued and the assessee requested withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to restore the issues concerning testing charges and management fees to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination. The Tribunal noted that it was unclear whether the expenses were subcontracting charges or testing charges, and that the legal meaning of these terms differs. It also observed that the AO needed to examine the facts in light of documentary evidence to determine if foreign entities made knowledge available to the assessee. Regarding royalty, the AO was directed to re-examine whether testing charges are in the nature of royalty, considering the assessee's contention of paying separate royalty for trademark use to another AE and the fact that customers use the trademark only after testing by UL USA. For management fees, the Tribunal found that the assessee's alternate plea of reimbursement of global costs was not raised before the AO and not dealt with judiciously by the CIT(A), hence restored to the AO for fresh examination. For the revenue's appeal on software payments, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had held reimbursement of software expenses as not taxable, and the department had not filed an appeal against that order. Applying the rule of consistency, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, rendering the issue of whether payments are royalty academic. The appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.