ITAT Bangalore Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal found that the bank statement, crucial for verifying the claim, was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the bank statement and other evidence.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds as they were critical for fair adjudication and no fresh facts were required. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the entire issue to the file of the Additional/Joint CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. A token cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on the assessee for negligence.

The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act are eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following a High Court ruling. For demonetization deposits, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of member KYC details.

The Tribunal found no valid reasons for the addition made by the AO. The assessee had produced all necessary details, including cash book and bank statements, which were audited and showed no infirmities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 648 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation offered by the assessee to be plausible and constituting 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded that the assessee could not represent his case before the learned Additional/Joint CIT(A). In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and considering the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue in dispute back to the file of the learned Additional/Joint CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. This includes considering the condonation application for the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal also imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee for the negligence shown towards statutory notices before the first appellate authority. The assessee was directed to deposit this cost and furnish the receipt. The first appellate authority was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to decide the case on merits. The Tribunal clarified that further default by the assessee would not entitle them to any leniency.

The Tribunal restored the entire issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after imposing a token cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee for negligence.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading an order on the ITBA portal does not constitute valid service. Service must be effected as per prescribed methods, including electronic means. Therefore, the appeal was considered filed within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Due to the assessee's failure to represent their case before the lower authorities, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54/54F of the Act on account of investment in a residential house, considering the entire flats received under the JDA as a residential house. Therefore, the capital gain computed on the transfer of land under the JDA is exempted.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the subsequent rectification order. The Tribunal clarified that this order does not adjudicate on the merits of the original grounds.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee on deposits of its surplus and reserve funds in co-operative banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documents to support his income from salary, pension, and loans. Considering the assessee's circumstances and the evidence, the Tribunal decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234A cannot be charged for the period during which it was not legally possible for the assessee to file a valid return. The AO was directed to recompute the interest by excluding this period.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Revenue's no objection. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the cash belonged to him. A mere denial of ownership was insufficient to shift the burden of proof to the department.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits and that the assessee was not effectively represented. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 167B is not applicable to societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, as it expressly excludes them. Therefore, the assessee's income should be taxed at slab rates.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back for a decision on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to appear before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that rejection of a prior application does not bar the assessee from filing a fresh application for registration. The CIT(Exemptions) must consider the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws on each application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as delayed, as the appeal was filed within the 90-day period extended by the Supreme Court's suo motu order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged that assessment proceedings occurred during the COVID lockdown and found merit in the assessee's argument regarding non-appearance and delay. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying credit for the payment made for the building and in disturbing the brought-forward written down value based on earlier years. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the capital loss as claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment in 2016, Form 3CL was not legally mandated for quantifying eligible expenditure. Once the R&D facility was approved by DSIR, the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction on all permissible expenditure incurred.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a BSNL employee who retired under a voluntary retirement scheme, should be treated as a Central Government employee for the purpose of claiming exemptions under Section 10(10B) and 10(10AA). The Assessing Officer was directed to allow these benefits.

The Tribunal is hearing the appeal against the order of the CIT (Exemptions) rejecting the registration application. The grounds of appeal raise issues regarding the CIT's understanding of financial statements, comparison with bank accounts, and cancellation of exemption renewal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as belated, as the Supreme Court's directions on limitation extension due to COVID-19 were applicable. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to substantiate its claimed loss. Merely because books were not audited or some vouchers were self-made, the book results could not be rejected without proper examination.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the voluntary liquidation proceedings of the erstwhile company. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the short grant of TDS credit was an issue that needed to be adjudicated. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the credit after verification, and if discrepancies arose, to conduct necessary inquiries before deciding the entitlement.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the entire sale consideration of the site as unexplained cash credit without proper appreciation of evidence. It also found that the AO's treatment of cash deposits and property payment as unexplained was not substantiated.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with both cooperative banks and other banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is business income attributable to the cooperative society's activity of providing credit facilities to its members. The distinction made by the lower authorities between cooperative and other banks for the purpose of section 80P(2)(a)(i) was not approved.

The Tribunal held that the issue of reasonableness of remuneration paid to trustees requires a factual determination of the services rendered and comparable market rates. Neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer had undertaken this exercise.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by ignoring the Assessing Officer's remand report, which accepted that the deposits were explained. The Tribunal found that a portion belonged to the HUF and the rest was explained by accumulated savings and income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application solely on procedural grounds without examining the trust's objects and genuineness of activities. The assessee was not given a fair opportunity to cure defects.

The Tribunal held that the foreign tax credit should not be denied solely due to the delayed filing of Form No. 67, especially when it is available at the appellate stage. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the form and grant the credit if the assessee is eligible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding the medical certificate sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 54F(4) is not attracted if the assessee intends to invest the unutilized capital gains in purchasing or constructing a residential house within the prescribed period, even if it's not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. Therefore, the disallowance of the exemption was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only to amounts claimed as a deduction in computing business income. Since the capitalized expenditures were not claimed as deductions in the relevant year, the disallowance was not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning disallowance of payments to Forrester Research Ltd. as the assessee satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 80G. For payments made through the US branch, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the scope of work for Tangent International, UK, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish details.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning disallowance of payments to Forrester Research Ltd. as the assessee satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 80G. For payments made through the US branch, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the scope of work for Tangent International, UK, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish details.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit all supporting documents. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54 is allowable for each residential house transferred, and since the assessee invested in multiple properties, the exemption should be allowed for all 5 properties. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had allowed similar claims in previous assessment years for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of companies with higher turnovers from the comparable list is a consistent practice followed by coordinate benches, including in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that companies with significantly higher turnovers (more than 10 times the assessee's) can impact the margin calculations. Therefore, it directed the AO to recompute the ALP by excluding companies with segmental turnovers exceeding Rs. 200 crores, as listed in ground no. 7. Regarding outstanding receivables, the Tribunal, following its own order in the assessee's case for AY 2016-17 and a jurisdictional High Court judgment (PCIT vs. AMD India Pvt. Ltd.), held that receivables in foreign currency with an AE constitute international transactions. It set aside the interest rate adopted by the AO and directed the AO to adopt an interest rate of LIBOR + 2%, as previously held by the Tribunal. Other grounds were not adjudicated and were kept open.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to comply with notices and furnish complete details. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide the issues afresh on merits after considering all grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction after examining the assessee's accounts before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance beyond the assessee's voluntary amount was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that adjustments made by the CPC disallowing employee contributions paid beyond the due dates under respective Acts could not be made under section 143(1) prior to Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, the disallowances were directed to be deleted.