ITAT Bangalore Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the issue of unexplained credits to the capital account should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. It also deleted the addition made on account of remission/cessation of sundry creditors, finding no evidence of such cessation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11. It found that the revenue's grounds of appeal were based on the premise that the assessee was not eligible for exemption, which the Tribunal had already decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not dispute the charitable nature of the trust's objects. It found that employee benefit expenses were incurred for the trust's objectives and that the justification of expenditure should be considered during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage. Regarding medical expenses, the Tribunal noted that while details of beneficiaries were not initially provided, the trust purchased medicines for the underprivileged based on doctor's prescriptions, which aligns with its objects.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not a speaking order and lacked sufficient reasoning to deny condonation of delay. The appeals were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the condonation application and a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not exceed the scope of limited scrutiny as the issues arose from the details furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted the provisions of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act regarding income from house property.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11. It found that the revenue's grounds of appeal were based on the premise that the assessee was not eligible for exemption, which the Tribunal had already decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not dispute the charitable nature of the trust's objects. It found that employee benefit expenses were incurred for the trust's objectives and that the justification of expenditure should be considered during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage. Regarding medical expenses, the Tribunal noted that while details of beneficiaries were not initially provided, the trust purchased medicines for the underprivileged based on doctor's prescriptions, which aligns with its objects.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11. It found that the revenue's grounds of appeal were based on the premise that the assessee was not eligible for exemption, which the Tribunal had already decided in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the orders of both the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not a speaking order and lacked sufficient reasoning to deny condonation of delay. The appeals were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the condonation application and a decision on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination. The AO was directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to submit all necessary details and evidence for a fair adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the peculiar financial circumstances of the company and the assessees. Considering the ground that necessary documents could not be filed due to reasons beyond their control, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the peculiar financial circumstances of the company and the assessees. Considering the ground that necessary documents could not be filed due to reasons beyond their control, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the peculiar financial circumstances of the company and the assessees. Considering the ground that necessary documents could not be filed due to reasons beyond their control, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the peculiar financial circumstances of the company and the assessees. Considering the ground that necessary documents could not be filed due to reasons beyond their control, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the assessee's ineligibility for Section 44AD was incorrect, as the CPC had accepted the presumptive income initially. The Tribunal also noted that the core issue was whether the income was added twice by the CPC.

The Tribunal condoned a 290-day delay in filing the appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify whether the interest on borrowed money, for which indexed cost was claimed, had already been claimed as a deduction under Section 24(b) or any other head of income in the current or preceding years, to prevent any double deduction as per the established legal principle. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the AO for necessary verification.

The Tribunal held that the E-stamping commission from non-members was a minor fraction of the total income and did not disentitle the assessee from the deduction. It further held that interest income from deposits made to meet statutory requirements was operational income and eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO has the right to examine factual details like membership composition to verify eligibility for tax deductions under Section 80P. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify compliance with state cooperative laws regarding membership and statutory deposits.

The Tribunal held that the AO has the right to examine factual details like the number and category of members to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, as it impacts the principle of mutuality. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue of member classification and the eligibility of interest income from FDs, particularly statutory deposits.

The Tribunal noted that Section 153C was amended effective June 1, 2015, substituting 'belongs or belong to' with 'pertains or pertain to'. This amendment was intended to broaden the scope beyond strict ownership, addressing a restrictive interpretation by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal considered the applicability of this amended section to searches conducted before the amendment date.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's illiteracy and ailments as valid reasons for non-compliance and granted an opportunity to substantiate the claim for exemption. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and remitted for denovo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO has the right to examine factual details like the number and category of members to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, as it impacts the principle of mutuality. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue of member classification and the eligibility of interest income from FDs, particularly statutory deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were without jurisdiction because there was no cogent incriminating material belonging to the assessee pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the assessment orders were liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were without jurisdiction because there was no cogent incriminating material belonging to the assessee pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the assessment orders were liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not wilfully omitted to file objections and that penalizing for technical violations was not appropriate. The DRP should have remitted the issue to the AO for consideration of additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were without jurisdiction because there was no cogent incriminating material belonging to the assessee pertaining to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the assessment orders were liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, operating under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, is eligible for Section 80P deduction. The presence of nominal and associate members, permitted by law and not breaching mutuality, does not disqualify the deduction. Interest income from FDRs needs verification regarding mandatory requirements.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without affording proper opportunity to the assessee. It recognized that initial years might involve preparatory work and activities might not be substantial. The ITAT set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to provide due opportunity to the assessee to furnish details and explanations.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide valid reasons and supporting documents to condone the inordinate delay of 7 years in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that a claim for deduction under section 80P must be made in a valid and timely filed return of income. Since the assessee failed to meet this mandatory pre-condition, the deduction cannot be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions without confronting the investigation report and without a proper basis for estimating the rent. The rent received was found to be more than the BBMP rate, and the property was given to the son out of love and affection.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the statutory 15% accumulation of income under Section 11(1) without conditions, allowing this claim. However, the issue of accumulation under Section 11(2) was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the return and Form 10B.

The Tribunal condoned the 99-day delay in filing the appeal, relying on the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji. It observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application for non-compliance without examining the documents already submitted by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to provide reasonable opportunity, and the assessee to comply with notices, with no further leniency for subsequent failure.

The Tribunal noted that the CPC and CIT(A) proceeded on the premise that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 11, which requires 12AA registration. However, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), which has different conditions and does not mandate 12AA registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not passing a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient and reasonable cause. It set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO's file, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case and provide necessary documentation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide valid reasons and supporting documents to condone the inordinate delay of 7 years in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide valid reasons and supporting documents to condone the inordinate delay of 7 years in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not passing a speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application was rejected without an effective opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the CIT(E)'s order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the bank account was already disclosed and no fresh tangible material was brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate escapement of income, the reopening of the assessment was without valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide evidence earlier, granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice would be appropriate. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the assessment and remitted the issue of the assessee's residential status to the AO for de novo assessment. Similarly, the issue of dividend income's eligibility for deduction as a non-resident was also remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity for rebuttal, as required by Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the receipts totaling Rs.97.18 crores, comprising Rs.92.55 crores from the sale of standard software and Rs.4.62 crores as cross-charge for third-party software, are neither royalty under the Income Tax Act nor under the DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the revenue authorities themselves accepted that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Ltd.'s case and by the Tribunal's own decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier years. Therefore, these amounts are not chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs.97.18 crores. Regarding the Rs.1,02,17,458/-, the Tribunal found that this sum received from Altair Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. was a reimbursement for third-party hardware purchased by the assessee on behalf of the Indian entity. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to uphold the Assessing Officer's action of taxing this sum as capital gains under the Income-tax Act or the DTAA and directed its deletion. Other technical grounds were left undecided as the substantive issues were decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and could be dismissed on technical grounds. However, to avoid undue hardship, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that treating gross receipts as unexplained income is contrary to settled jurisprudence and that outright rejection of agricultural income claim without inquiry is unwarranted. It found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity.