ITAT Bangalore Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice, considering the large demand and the possibility of a genuine claim under the wrong section. The matter was remanded back to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), accepting the assessee's explanation of unfamiliarity with e-proceedings. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that while the assessment under Section 153C was valid, the additions made as deemed dividends were not sustainable due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the CIT(E) passed a cryptic order by relying solely on the AO's report without independent analysis or providing a proper hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have submitted documents to the ITO as per a notice, but the CIT rejected the application without a final opportunity. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, especially when the order number was correctly provided and no defect notice was issued. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the time limit for filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee should not be denied FTC due to a delay in filing. The authorities should have considered the Form 67 submitted before the processing of the return.

The Tribunal held that while the assessment under Section 153C was valid, the additions made as deemed dividends were not sustainable due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the profit estimations by the AO and the assessee's claim of not receiving notices. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the potential for a better assessment, the Tribunal granted a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to specify which clause of Section 270A(9) is attracted for misreporting. Since neither the assessment order nor the penalty notice specified the limb of misreporting, the penalty order is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from co-operative banks is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding the defunct email ID. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the case was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding the assessee's reasons plausible. The Tribunal also remitted the entire issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's inability to represent his case earlier.

The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the profit estimations by the AO and the assessee's claim of not receiving notices. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the potential for a better assessment, the Tribunal granted a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, especially when the order number was correctly provided and no defect notice was issued. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on medical grounds, imposing a cost on the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the AO for de-novo assessment. The penalty appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the remand of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's delay in filing the appeal due to the death of a director. It found that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal solely on the lack of written submissions and supporting documents, as the assessee had initially provided details of creditors.

The Tribunal held that while the assessment under Section 153C was valid, the additions made as deemed dividends were not sustainable due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar under the Income Tax Act on an assessee filing a fresh application in Form 10AB for approval under Section 80G of the Act before the same authority, even if a previous application was rejected, provided the assessee satisfies all the conditions for granting approval. The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s reasoning for treating the fresh application as non-est and void-ab-initio to be unjustified and bad in law. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E)'s earlier rejection order dated 30.09.2024 was based on a misinterpretation of Section 80G, as it considered the provisions from the perspective of a donor claiming deduction rather than an institution seeking approval. While acknowledging that the assessee did not respond to a show-cause notice, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, remitted the issue back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to consider the application filed on 27.03.2025 and decide in accordance with the law, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that the approval, if granted, would be effective from the date of the fresh application, not the original one.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice, considering the large demand and the possibility of a genuine claim under the wrong section. The matter was remanded back to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of both lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the AO accepted the difference as business receipts and should have treated the calculated profit as business income, not unexplained income. The addition of Rs. 16,360/- under Section 69A was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasons for non-appearance, including medical emergencies and issues with accessing email. Considering the assessee is a registered GST dealer, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without obtaining approval from the specified authority as per the amended Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on medical grounds, imposing a cost on the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the AO for de-novo assessment. The penalty appeal was dismissed as it did not survive the remand of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the profit estimations by the AO and the assessee's claim of not receiving notices. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the potential for a better assessment, the Tribunal granted a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal decided to remit the entire issue to the AO for a fresh decision, considering the additional evidence and allowing the legal heir an opportunity to be heard. The AO was directed to obtain the death certificate and identify legal heirs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the illness of the assessee's representative. It found that the CIT(Exemptions) had merely relied on the AO's report without giving proper opportunity or passing a reasoned order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause on the part of the assessee. The appeals were decided on merits, and the reassessment order was set aside due to a lack of valid satisfaction for issuing the notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which were filed along with Form 35. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if a notice under Section 143(2) was issued, as its absence could render the assessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not substantiated and lacked sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence and lack of representation before lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause on the part of the assessee. The appeals were decided on merits, and the reassessment order was set aside due to a lack of valid satisfaction for issuing the notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not substantiated and lacked sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence and lack of representation before lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not substantiated and lacked sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence and lack of representation before lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which were filed along with Form 35. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if a notice under Section 143(2) was issued, as its absence could render the assessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant criterion for determining comparability because the scale of operations directly impacts profitability due to economies of scale. Companies with significantly higher turnovers enjoy cost efficiencies and market advantages not available to smaller entities. The Tribunal noted that companies with very high turnovers operate on a different scale and benefit from economies of scale, better market position, and cost advantages, which directly affect their profitability. Size of the company is a recognized factor for comparability, as differences in turnover and market share influence pricing and margins. While turnover filters cannot be applied mechanically, they must consider the tested entity's turnover to select companies with a broadly similar scale of operations, assets, and risk profile. This aligns with OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and ICAI Guidance Notes, which emphasize that comparing a Rs. 1,000 crore company with a Rs. 10 crore company materially affects profitability and comparability. Therefore, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the turnover filter. Regarding delayed receivables, the Tribunal held that delays in realization of receivables from AEs constitute an international transaction requiring benchmarking. However, it clarified that working capital adjustments do not fully capture all delays. The Tribunal found the TPO's approach of not netting off receivables and payables to be unjustified, stating that the real benefit must be determined on a net basis when both exist with the same AE, as ignoring payables leads to an artificial adjustment. The Tribunal also held that netting off is permissible only where receivables and payables pertain to the same AE. For the benchmark rate of interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute it by adopting LIBOR plus 200 basis points, as per the jurisdictional Bangalore ITAT's decision in Synechron Technologies (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT. Interest is to be computed only for the actual period of delay beyond the agreed credit period after considering payables. This ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not substantiated and lacked sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence and lack of representation before lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause on the part of the assessee. The appeals were decided on merits, and the reassessment order was set aside due to a lack of valid satisfaction for issuing the notice under Section 148.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 208 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's health issues and the ex-parte assessment, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the assessee to apply for fresh registration under Section 12AB and subsequently claim exemptions, restoring the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for shifting the factory was revenue in nature as it merely facilitated the continuation of business without creating a new asset or altering the capital structure. Furthermore, considering the time elapsed, allowing it as revenue expenditure was deemed practical and tax neutral.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the illness of the assessee's representative. It found that the CIT(Exemptions) had merely relied on the AO's report without giving proper opportunity or passing a reasoned order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the assessee to apply for fresh registration under Section 12AB and subsequently claim exemptions, restoring the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not substantiated and lacked sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence and lack of representation before lower authorities.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish supporting evidence. A cost of ₹2,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the notional interest on delayed receivables constitutes a separate international transaction. This is based on the Explanation to Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which expands the definition of 'international transaction' to include 'deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business'. Therefore, non-charging or under-charging of interest on the excess period of credit allowed to an AE for invoice realization falls within the scope of an international transaction. The Tribunal also noted that various judicial precedents support this view. Regarding the interest rate, the Tribunal, referencing the jurisdictional Bangalore ITAT's decision in Synechron Technologies (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT, found the TPO's adoption of LIBOR + 450 basis points to be erroneous. It directed the TPO to recompute the notional interest by adopting LIBOR plus 200 basis points. Furthermore, the Tribunal, to provide reasonable relief, adopted a credit period of 60 days, directing the TPO to verify the credit period of comparable companies before computing the interest. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that 'Liquidhub Analytics Private Limited' failed the 25% RPT filter and should be excluded from the comparables. Regarding delayed receivables, the Tribunal ruled it as a separate international transaction but directed the TPO to recompute interest using LIBOR plus 200 basis points for the actual period of delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach for substantial justice, but imposed a cost on the assessee for negligence. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits regarding the computation of net income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach for substantial justice, but imposed a cost on the assessee for negligence. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits regarding the computation of net income.