ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal held that a company incurring a loss should not be excluded as a comparable unless the loss is due to abnormal circumstances. It also directed the AO to re-examine the working capital adjustment and the correct margins for a specific comparable company.

The Tribunal held that the completion date should be considered from the revised building plan approval date, as it incorporated new buildings. Therefore, the project was completed within the extended due date, making the assessee eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that once the Gross Profit (GP) rate is estimated on undisclosed sales, no separate addition is warranted for violation of Section 40A(3) regarding cash payments for purchases, as the GP estimation inherently accounts for all related expenses and profits. The Tribunal also noted that previous decisions in similar cases had deleted additions based on similar evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal noted that similar additions in cases of other group concerns, where the CIT(A) had deleted them, were confirmed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the case similar to a previous precedent where appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer due to non-availability of documents and ongoing proceedings before other authorities. The quantum appeals were partly allowed, and the penalty appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal found gaps in the facts gathered by the lower authorities regarding the right to sub-lease, modification of software, and the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE). Therefore, the issues were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found gaps in the facts gathered by the lower authorities regarding the right to sub-lease, modification of software, and the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE). Therefore, the issues were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found the case similar to a previous precedent where appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer due to non-availability of documents and ongoing proceedings before other authorities. The quantum appeals were partly allowed, and the penalty appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal found the case similar to a previous precedent where appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer due to non-availability of documents and ongoing proceedings before other authorities. The quantum appeals were partly allowed, and the penalty appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal found the case similar to a previous precedent where appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer due to non-availability of documents and ongoing proceedings before other authorities. The quantum appeals were partly allowed, and the penalty appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that purchases from a declared hawala dealer cannot be accepted as genuine. However, adding the entire purchase amount was not justified; only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.

The Tribunal found gaps in the facts gathered by the lower authorities regarding the right to sub-lease, modification of software, and the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE). Therefore, the issues were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and found it reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) for subsequent years covering similar transactions. Considering the APA and previous years' treatment of MSS payments, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examination in light of the APA.

The Tribunal held that subsequent approvals for different buildings on the same plot were to be considered as separate projects with their own completion timelines. Since all buildings were completed within their respective due dates, the deduction under Section 80IB(10) was rightly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void. This was due to the Assessing Officer's failure to supply reasons for reopening and issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of remuneration to lady directors was unjustified as it was allowed in previous and subsequent years without change in facts. However, the additions for cessation of liability and disallowance of incentive payments were confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the objects of the assessee were identical to CREDAI, Sangli, which had been granted registration. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted as the payments were genuine, bonafide, and made in cash due to the insistence of the payees, which constituted business expediency. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted by the Tribunal, no penalty is leviable. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases where penalty on estimated additions was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the unoperational bank account and the subsequent opening of a new account was vital. Therefore, the issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The ITAT held that since the quantum issue of repairs and maintenance expenses was decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench, the penalty on that addition would not survive. For legal expenses, as the High Court admitted the issue as a substantial question of law, it was considered debatable, and thus penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) on the additional income offered, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Infosys BPO should be excluded as a comparable due to its significantly higher turnover compared to the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12 for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant telescoping benefit. The appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12 for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant telescoping benefit. The appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) on the additional income offered, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) on the additional income offered, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) on the additional income offered, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) on the additional income offered, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted by the Tribunal, no penalty is leviable. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases where penalty on estimated additions was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted by the Tribunal, no penalty is leviable. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases where penalty on estimated additions was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence that required remanding to the AO's file. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on existing documents and binding judicial precedents to delete the additions, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any contravention of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence that required remanding to the AO's file. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on existing documents and binding judicial precedents to delete the additions, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any contravention of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence that required remanding to the AO's file. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on existing documents and binding judicial precedents to delete the additions, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any contravention of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence that required remanding to the AO's file. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on existing documents and binding judicial precedents to delete the additions, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any contravention of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of expenses back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to produce necessary evidence. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) on the additional income offered, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains arising from revenue debtors, directly derived from the sale of saplings/seedlings, constitute agricultural income. However, gains from capital creditors and EEFC accounts were treated as non-agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that Infosys BPO should be excluded as a comparable due to its significantly higher turnover compared to the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that mere ownership of a locker does not imply ownership of its contents, especially in the context of Indian family structures. Since Shri Sunil Kotecha had already offered the jewellery as his income and it was assessed in his hands, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was unsustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12 for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant telescoping benefit. The appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12 for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant telescoping benefit. The appeals for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the preliminary onus to prove the utilization of borrowed funds for business purposes. However, considering the interest income earned, the disallowance was restricted to the net interest expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a single instance of selling a plot of land by a salaried person does not indicate an intention to trade. The case was found to be similar to another assessee where the income was accepted as long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked a speaking order for item-wise reconciliation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, including verification of transactions with related concerns.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence that required remanding to the AO's file. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on existing documents and binding judicial precedents to delete the additions, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate any contravention of Rule 46A.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals. The revenue had no objection to this request. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.