ITAT Bangalore Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal in limine for delay without condoning it. It found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay due to change of address and non-receipt of orders, and the delay was not attributable to negligence. The case was set aside to the AO for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) due to issues with notice delivery. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present details.

The Tribunal held that the addition for revenue recognition was not sustainable as the assessee had already offered income exceeding the AO's addition in earlier years. Regarding cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance in its books to cover the deposits, and the revenue failed to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the addition for revenue recognition was not sustainable as the assessee had already offered income exceeding the AO's addition in earlier years. Regarding cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance in its books to cover the deposits, and the revenue failed to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding its activities, including lease deeds, construction bills, and bank statements. The rejection based solely on the Income & Expenditure for FY 2023-24 was considered improper.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on investments of surplus funds in banks, even if not cooperative societies, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, the Tribunal also considered the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income derived from business funds, not surplus funds.

The Tribunal held that hearing the penalty appeal was premature as the quantum appeal was still pending. Following a High Court precedent, it was decided that penalty orders should be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment year, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search related to the specific addition. The reliance on general incriminating material for unrelated additions was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements recorded during search operations are unsustainable. It upheld the deletion of additions not supported by cogent material evidence.

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search related to the specific addition. The reliance on the Abhisar Buildwell judgment by the CIT(A) was considered misplaced in this context.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements recorded during search operations are not sustainable. The cash component of income admitted and disclosed in the return can be brought to tax, but other additions require corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements recorded under Section 132(4) are not sustainable. Corroborative evidence is required to substantiate such admissions.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements recorded during search operations are unsustainable in law. Corroborative evidence is required to substantiate such admissions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions not supported by cogent material evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements recorded during search operations are not sustainable. Corroborative evidence is required to substantiate such admissions. The Tribunal also noted that the principal loan amount had already been offered to tax.

The Tribunal decided that additions made solely on the basis of admissions under section 132(4) without corroborative evidence were not sustainable. It also addressed issues related to the validity of joint assessment orders against legal heirs and the benefit of telescoping income.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act are not sustainable without corroborative evidence. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to substantiate the additions.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements recorded under section 132(4) are unsustainable. It also found that the addition of interest paid in cash was not supported by evidence, especially when the principal loan amount was already taxed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition in respect of loan credit from 13 parties, to whom the loan was repaid in full through banking channels, could not be sustained. This was based on the principle that once it is established that unsecured loans were received and repaid through banking channels, their genuineness cannot be questioned, drawing support from the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Ojas Tarmake Pvt Ltd. Regarding the remaining loan amount of Rs. 3,76,30,326/- from 38 individual parties, where settlement agreements were reached for part payment, the Tribunal noted that the amounts were received through banking channels, and the assessee provided names, addresses, PAN, settlement agreements, and evidence of repayment through banking channels. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee discharged the onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding confirming the addition and directed the AO to delete the entire addition. The assessee's ground of appeal was allowed, and the revenue's ground of appeal was dismissed. The issue raised in the additional ground of appeal for AY 2017-18 was found to be identical to that for AY 2013-14, and the findings in ITA No. 1442/Bang/2024 would apply. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the procedural aspect raised in the additional ground regarding the assessment order being bad in law due to multiple demands on legal heirs, as the provided text cuts off before the conclusion of that discussion.

The Tribunal clubbed all appeals and decided the issues based on the findings in the case of Mrs. Malavika Hegde. The appeals filed by the legal heirs were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded under section 132(4) without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions not supported by cogent material evidence.

The Tribunal found that the search warrant was issued for Coffee Day Global Ltd. and not specifically for the assessee's company premises on the 7th floor. Consequently, the subsequent notice under Section 153C and the assessment order based on this search were deemed illegal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for condonation of delay. The specific decision on whether the delay was condoned or not is not detailed in the provided text, but the appeal is being processed.

The Tribunal held that the search conducted in the assessee's premises was illegal as there was no specific warrant for that location. The notice issued under section 153C was also deemed bad in law because the search was conducted in the assessee's premises and incriminating material was recovered from there, necessitating proceedings under section 153A, not 153C. Additionally, a statement recorded after the search was deemed inadmissible.

The Tribunal held that the search conducted in the assessee's premises was illegal as there was no specific warrant for that location. The notice issued under section 153C was also deemed bad in law because the search was conducted in the assessee's premises and incriminating material was recovered from there, necessitating proceedings under section 153A, not 153C. Additionally, a statement recorded after the search was deemed inadmissible.

The Tribunal held that the search conducted in the assessee's premises was illegal as there was no specific warrant for that location. The notice issued under section 153C was also deemed bad in law because the search was conducted in the assessee's premises and incriminating material was recovered from there, necessitating proceedings under section 153A, not 153C. Additionally, a statement recorded after the search was deemed inadmissible.

The Tribunal held that the search conducted in the assessee's premises was illegal as there was no specific warrant for that location. The notice issued under section 153C was also deemed bad in law because the search was conducted in the assessee's premises and incriminating material was recovered from there, necessitating proceedings under section 153A, not 153C. Additionally, a statement recorded after the search was deemed inadmissible.

The Tribunal held that the search conducted in the assessee's premises was illegal as there was no specific warrant for that location. The notice issued under section 153C was also deemed bad in law because the search was conducted in the assessee's premises and incriminating material was recovered from there, necessitating proceedings under section 153A, not 153C. Additionally, a statement recorded after the search was deemed inadmissible.

The Tribunal held that the search conducted on the 7th floor, which was occupied by the assessee's company under a sub-lease, was illegal as no specific warrant was issued for that premises. Consequently, the assessments made under section 153C based on this illegal search were also deemed illegal.

The Tribunal condoned the 10-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice over technicalities. The entire issue in dispute was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. There must be an element of concealment or deliberate misstatement, which was absent in this case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted sufficient time to file all details in response to the show cause notice. The Tribunal perused the additional evidence filed before the DRP and the ITAT, which included details of several vendors other than IBC Knowledge Park, lease agreements with these vendors, sub-lease agreements with sister concerns, rent reconciliation workings, and invoices/debit/credit notes for rental payments. The Tribunal found that these documents, which were not considered by the AO, established that the assessee had paid rents not only to IBC Knowledge Park but also to other vendors and incurred expenses for office fit-outs and maintenance. The Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee had evidence to show that the rental expenses declared in the financial statements were correct and actual. It was also noted that the additional documents could not be produced before the AO due to insufficient time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the AO with all available documents. The final assessment order of the AO was set aside, and the issue was remitted to the jurisdictional assessing officer to pass an order afresh after hearing the assessee. The stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grievance about the AO's action was not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal had already issued clear directions to the AO, and any further grievances should be addressed through other remedies.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Forms 1 and 2 and made the necessary payment, confirming the settlement under the DTVSV Scheme. Considering the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable as it was not based on the very reasons recorded for issuing the notice (huge cash deposits), but rather on the turnover declared by the assessee, without the AO having sought explanation for the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Denial of FTC solely on account of a procedural lapse defeats the purpose of avoiding double taxation and is contrary to the overriding provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under section 154 of the Act which was not considered, and the assessee was awaiting a result from it. Therefore, the issue of delay was remitted back to the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that procedural law is subservient to justice. It further held that the filing of the audit report is directory, not mandatory, and can be accepted at a later stage if sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not consider the condonation of delay application on its own merits and directed the CIT(Exemptions) to decide the application afresh. The matter of accumulation and depreciation was also to be decided by the AO after fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that although Section 40A(3) was violated, the disallowance was saved by the exception under Rule 6DD(j). They noted that the payee's identity and the genuineness of the payment were not in doubt, and the fund movement demonstrated a pragmatic approach to the transaction.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO due to the assessee's failure to avail opportunities provided by the lower authorities. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as costs.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal, supported by Form 4 issued under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, which confirmed the settlement of the dispute. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the issue under the said scheme. Consequently, accepting the assessee's request, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.