ITAT Bangalore Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that souharda co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following a High Court ruling. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68, finding that the cash deposits from members were explained and identifiable.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees, even without a profit element, can be considered taxable as Fee for Technical Services. The nature of the payment, not just the label 'reimbursement', is determinative.

The Tribunal held that souharda co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following a High Court ruling. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68, finding that the cash deposits from members were explained and identifiable.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including loan agreements and bank confirmations, acknowledging sufficient cause for their delayed submission. It remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to consider the new evidence and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the seconded employees made available technical knowledge, skills, and know-how to the Indian entity, thus qualifying as Fees for Technical Services under the DTAA. The reimbursement of salary costs was therefore considered taxable.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees, even without a profit element, constitutes a payment for services and is subject to TDS. The 'make available' clause of the DTAA and the employer-employee relationship are not determinative in this context.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock found was an integral part of the assessee's business activity and should be treated as business income under section 28. The AO's presumption of it being undisclosed income under section 69B was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the orders of rejection by the CIT(E) were unreasoned and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also noted that the genuineness of the trust's activities for charitable purposes needed to be examined.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act were prospective in nature, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the CPC wrongly charged fees for TDS deducted prior to this date as the enabling provision was not in force.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act were prospective in nature, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the CPC wrongly charged fees for TDS deducted prior to this date as the enabling provision was not in force.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act on a proposal from the AO, rather than the CIT suo motu calling for and examining the record, renders the order jurisdictionally deficient.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's circumstances. While the assessee argued for a lack of proper opportunity, the Tribunal found no basis to restore the appeal to the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee furnishes details of the deposits and their use.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be reconsidered by the AO. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the orders of rejection by the CIT(E) were unreasoned and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also noted that the genuineness of the trust's activities for charitable purposes needed to be examined.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. Considering the assessee's illiteracy and reliance on a former auditor for communication, there was sufficient cause for the delay. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the circumstances beyond the assessee's control due to their tax consultant's negligence. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had inadvertently passed an order concerning the rectification application under Section 154, whereas the appeal before the CIT(A) was against the intimation under Section 143(1). The issue needed to be revisited by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the assessee's authorized representative sought withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction to the AO to conduct a fresh assessment was not infirm. The assessee needs to substantiate with documentary evidence that the equipment was received on a returnable basis.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act on a proposal from the AO, rather than the CIT suo motu calling for and examining the record, renders the order jurisdictionally deficient.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act on a proposal from the AO, rather than the CIT suo motu calling for and examining the record, renders the order jurisdictionally deficient.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as loan repayments from members and were properly recorded in the audited books of account. The prohibition on transacting in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) came into effect later, and the assessee's acceptance of such notes from members was not illegal at the time.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act were prospective in nature, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the CPC wrongly charged fees for TDS deducted prior to this date as the enabling provision was not in force.

The Tribunal held that cash received as wedding gifts is exempt under Section 56(2)(vii) and does not require individual donor verification. The direction by the CIT(A) to verify donors was beyond his jurisdiction. The deduction under Section 80TTA was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was to be re-examined. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case. The TDS mismatch issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act on a proposal from the AO, rather than the CIT suo motu calling for and examining the record, renders the order jurisdictionally deficient.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act were prospective in nature, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the CPC wrongly charged fees for TDS deducted prior to this date as the enabling provision was not in force.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices and granted adjournments, but the assessee failed to appear or provide details, leading to ex-parte dismissal. However, considering the reason for non-appearance (marriage in counsel's family), the appeals were restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health issues. It held that the assessee's claim regarding agricultural income needed further verification and that the lower authorities had not properly examined the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the compensation paid by the assessee in respect of the first agreement to sell can be considered as wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with the present transfer of the immovable property, allowing it as a deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were based on the assessee's own statement during survey and cash deposits during demonetization. Despite the assessee's claim of ill health, the consistent non-compliance with notices at various stages demonstrated a lack of cooperation.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to represent its case properly before the lower authorities, decided to grant one more opportunity for a de novo assessment. A cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices and granted adjournments, but the assessee failed to appear or provide details, leading to ex-parte dismissal. However, considering the reason for non-appearance (marriage in counsel's family), the appeals were restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not correct in not condoning the delay. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2021-22, where a delay was condoned, the Tribunal found no change in facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposited in the Government depot's bank account, managed by the assessee in a fiduciary capacity as Depot Manager, cannot be treated as unexplained money in his hands. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 92,53,780/-.

The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed proportionally to the income assessable in the current year. Any TDS credit related to deferred revenue should be allowed in the year the income is offered.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were based on the assessee's own statement during survey and cash deposits during demonetization. Despite the assessee's claim of ill health, the consistent non-compliance with notices at various stages demonstrated a lack of cooperation.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was linked to the capital asset sale and declared under IDS, 2016, which provided immunity from adverse action for such deposits. The lower authorities failed to establish that the deposited amount was not the same cash declared under IDS. The Tribunal noted that the Press Release for IDS, 2016 assured that the source of cash deposits would not be questioned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices and granted adjournments, but the assessee failed to appear or provide details, leading to ex-parte dismissal. However, considering the reason for non-appearance (marriage in counsel's family), the appeals were restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal considered the request made by the assessee, Geetabai Meharawade, through a letter dated May 10, 2025, to withdraw the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was fixed for hearing on July 21, 2025. In accordance with the assessee's request, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning for the dismissal is solely based on the assessee's explicit request for withdrawal. No other issues were decided, and no specific relief was granted or denied on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal may be treated as withdrawn and accordingly filed a signed Form 36. In view of this submission and the filing of Form 36, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the availability of cash of Rs. 5,48,000 in the assessee's hands was on account of the sale consideration received for the agricultural land, as evidenced by the Sale Deed. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) could not be sustained.