ITAT Bangalore Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed the order rejecting the application after the assessee had submitted documents, and that the CIT(E)'s observation that the assessee was non-responsive was incorrect. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by previous judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, which had ruled that such payments were not royalty and therefore not taxable. The Department's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 within the due date is not mandatory and the assessee should not be deprived of foreign tax credit if Form 67 is submitted during assessment or appellate proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 within the due date is not mandatory and the assessee should not be deprived of foreign tax credit if Form 67 is submitted during assessment or appellate proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) in the regular assessment proceedings for the same AY was already deleted in the assessee's own case, the assessee cannot be treated as being in default for non-deduction of TDS. Therefore, the demand raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on the enhanced amount of profit resulting from disallowances. This decision aligns with a previous finding by the ITAT and is supported by CBDT Circular No. 37/2016.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) observed that the assessee failed to appear and provide necessary documents, despite the assessee submitting documents before the order was passed. The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s observation to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to be heard and without adjudicating on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was found to be in violation of natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P was not allowable because the return of income was filed belatedly, and not within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. This position is supported by the judgment of the Kerala High Court.

The Tribunal noted that their prior order concerning the stay petition and restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) addressed the issues. As no further order was required based on that previous decision, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 115JB to banking companies is a settled issue, referring to its own prior decisions and High Court judgments. It noted that the provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to banking companies.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for replacing the hydraulic system and electrical control panel of the main machinery, a second-hand machine, was capital in nature. This was due to the significant replacement of parts and the enduring benefit derived, leading to increased capacity.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the VSV Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had been issued Form 2, the appeals filed by the assessee were to be dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Counsel for the assessee brought this to the notice of the Tribunal. The learned DR for the Revenue could not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to revive its appeals in case Form-4 was not issued by the department. The ratio of this decision is that participation in the VSV Scheme, evidenced by the issuance of Form 2, leads to the withdrawal of pending appeals before the ITAT, subject to the issuance of Form 4.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the VSV Scheme and that the factual position was accepted by the Learned DR. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the submission of the assessee's counsel regarding the opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the issuance of Form 2. The learned DR did not raise any objection to the assessee's request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive its appeal in case the issue was not resolved under the VSV Scheme, specifically if Form-4 was not issued by the department. The Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural aspect of the assessee availing a settlement scheme and the lack of opposition from the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSV Scheme, 2024, and Form 2 had been issued. Since the Revenue's DR did not object to the withdrawal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.