ITAT Bangalore Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee's adoption of the 'other method' for benchmarking its international transactions was appropriate. The Tribunal found that the invoices produced by the assessee, documenting transactions, served as a form of agreement. The TPO's allegation of selective invoice submission was considered unsubstantiated without further inquiry. Therefore, the rejection of the assessee's transfer pricing study report was deemed without justifiable reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if the TPO's determination of ALP were accepted, the adjustment should have been confined to the international transaction itself, not the entire transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the adjustment of ₹47,174,000 made to the ALP of the international transaction of sale of air tickets. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a clear chart demonstrating the opening WDV of patents and copyrights for earlier years and had claimed depreciation at the prescribed rate. The Tribunal failed to understand what further substantiation was required when the claim was based on the opening WDV of the block of assets. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of depreciation of ₹1,845,615. The issue of jurisdiction was not pressed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the reasons to be minimal. It also condoned the significant delay before the Ld.CIT(A), taking a lenient view due to non-receipt of notices and the assessee's personal health issues.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was not in accordance with the Tribunal's previous directions and the assessee's request for adjournment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application. Key reasons for the rejection were not communicated to the assessee, and grounds like online reviews or charging fees were not valid for denying registration. The CIT(E) also failed to provide a personal hearing.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case was bad in law as it was not done in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 127 of the Act, which requires notice and communication of reasons. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153A was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted documents to the AO and later provided ledger confirmations to the Tribunal. Due to the procedural dismissal by the CIT(A), the AO's verification of the genuineness of the suppliers and purchases was not conclusive. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), accepting the assessee's explanation that the person in-charge was hospitalized. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted replies with acknowledgment numbers. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the applications afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The issue regarding interest income from scheduled banks was set aside and remitted to the AO for de novo consideration, with directions to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if the deposits were mandatory, or tax under Section 56 with eligible deductions otherwise.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's turnover, which included the disputed Rs.7,28,000 from SBNs, making a separate addition for this amount would result in impermissible double taxation. It noted that the profit element was already accounted for within the accepted turnover and that diagnostic centers were allowed to accept SBNs during demonetization. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.7,28,000.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 692 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding his income tax practitioner's non-compliance. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the AO and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of trade creditors under Section 68 was not justified as the purchases were accepted as genuine and payments were made in the succeeding year. However, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was sustained due to the assessee's inability to provide evidence of submitting Form 15G.

The Tribunal held that since the penalty was based on the quantum proceedings, and those proceedings were remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration, the penalty proceedings should also be remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay in filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) due to approaching the wrong forum (CPC for rectification). The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 83 days considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the authorities below and remitted the issue to the AO for denovo consideration, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 28 lakhs, reflected as salary in Form 16, should be taxed at the normal rate of tax. However, the issue of cash deposits was remitted back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to represent the case before the CIT(A) might be due to a notice being sent to the spam folder. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to appear before the AO and present documents regarding agricultural income and medical records for cancer treatment.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's ill health, senior citizen status, and physical disability (amputated leg) as reasons for not furnishing details to the lower authorities. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the issue to the AO for denovo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69 was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the source of funds, and the fair market value of shares was immaterial in this context. The Tribunal also directed the AO to issue a refund of excess TDS.

The Tribunal held that the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice was defective as it did not comply with Section 140A. Since the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 139(9) to cure the defect, the defective return was deemed non-est, rendering the assessment based on it invalid. No assessment or reassessment can be made on an invalid return without following due process.

The Tribunal held that considering the pandemic and Supreme Court's directions, the delay might be reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh consideration of the delay condonation application, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present documents.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The issue regarding interest income from scheduled banks was set aside and remitted to the AO for de novo consideration, with directions to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if the deposits were mandatory, or tax under Section 56 with eligible deductions otherwise.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted replies with acknowledgment numbers. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the applications afresh after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee is a charitable trust. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by deciding ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by probing issues not selected for it, violating CBDT instructions. However, it also observed that the AO did not provide a conclusive finding on the Rs. 50 lakhs payment issue and the assessee failed to provide complete details. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a conclusive finding.

The Tribunal held that the AO treated the cash deposit above the registered value as unexplained income under section 69A. However, the assessee had offered the full sale consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs as capital gain, and this was not disturbed by the AO. The Tribunal found a direct nexus between the cash received and the sale of the property, concluding that the source of the cash deposit was explained.

The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a higher Fair Market Value (FMV) based on enhanced compensation. Regarding the Section 54F deduction, the Tribunal allowed it, following a High Court ruling that depositing funds in a bank account and subsequent withdrawal for construction is acceptable, even if not in the CGAS.

The Tribunal noted that the cash deposit was followed by immediate transfer of the same amount via cheque to other HUFs, raising doubt about the assessee's ownership of the funds. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 10 lakhs, the amount transferred.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had not properly reconciled the cash deposits with the assessee's books of account and that the figure of Rs.402,70,610 from Form 26AS was not clearly established. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2021, the due date for filing revised returns for AY 2021-22 was extended to 31.03.2022. Therefore, the assessee's second revised return filed on 23.02.2022 was within the due date.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay in filing appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) due to approaching the wrong forum (CPC for rectification). The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on third-party information without independent inquiry and failed to demonstrate why only a specific portion of the purchases was bogus. The GST authority's observation only pertained to reversal of input tax credit due to delayed payment, not the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal held that while the COVID-19 exclusion period did not revive the time-barred appeal, the delay could be condoned under Section 249(3) of the Act based on the peculiar facts and the interest of justice, considering the assessee had an arguable case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to respond to notices was due to his age, lack of knowledge of electronic communication, and the practice of physical service of notices. Principles of natural justice demand that adequate opportunity be given. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) and the assessment order were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days, finding it to be technical in nature and caused by jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and remitted the matter back for de-novo assessment, directing the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the cash deposit was part of the assessee's regular business receipts and sales turnover, and thus, could not be added as unexplained income. The AO's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order, which allowed the deduction based on binding judicial precedents from the jurisdictional High Court, could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to April 1, 2013, the assessee is not obliged to prove the 'source of source' of funds. The assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with TRVPL. Therefore, the additions made under section 68 of the Act were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the case was decided ex-parte by both lower authorities for non-prosecution and considered the entire receipts as income. However, considering the assessee's prayer and in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration with effective opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction was based on prevailing judicial precedents at the time of filing the return, making the issue debatable. Therefore, the assessee cannot be considered to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the cash deposit was part of the assessee's regular business receipts and sales turnover, and thus, could not be added as unexplained income. The AO's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was caused by genuine reasons including the company's financial situation, staff shortage, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the 91-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age, lack of malafide intention, and the principles of substantial justice over technicality. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while Section 234E was introduced in 2012, it became operational only from 01.06.2015 after the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c). Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the levy of late fee prior to 01.06.2015 was deemed to be without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the procedural requirement of filing Form 10-IE is directory and not mandatory. The assessee's intention to be taxed under the old regime was clear from filing the return and paying tax accordingly. Therefore, the CPC's action of recomputing tax under the new regime was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to genuine difficulties in accessing the intimation and subsequent procedural steps. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on technical grounds was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not submit any documents to substantiate the cost of acquisition. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted to the jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the assessee, with directions for effective opportunities.