ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be obscure and lacking proper reasoning, as it mechanically followed a previous year's decision without verifying facts. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12A is sufficient proof of charitable purpose and that issues regarding application of income should be examined by the AO during assessment. The CIT was not justified in refusing registration based on technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a land owner contributing to the housing project by providing land, removing encumbrances, and marketing flats, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal also found that the joint venture was a conduit and the deduction was rightly claimed by the individual members.

The Tribunal held that several companies proposed as comparables by the Assessing Officer were not functionally comparable to the assessee due to different business models or extraordinary events. Consequently, these companies were excluded from the list of comparables.

The tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal and admitted it for adjudication. The tribunal found the facts and issues identical to a co-owner's case, where the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal and admitted it for adjudication. The tribunal found the facts and issues identical to a co-owner's case, where the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 as the payees lacked creditworthiness, their identities were not fully established, and the genuineness of the cash transactions was questionable.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 154 by attempting to change his earlier opinion. The issue of whether the compensation was capital or revenue expenditure was debatable, and thus not a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the issue should be restored to the Assessing Officer to decide in accordance with the terms and conditions of the APA, as the international transactions were similar to those covered by the APA.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues concerning disallowance of interest, disallowance of interest under Section 14A, addition under Section 69B, and addition under Section 50C back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to procedural issues, lack of opportunity for the assessee, and potential double taxation.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues concerning disallowance of interest, disallowance of interest under Section 14A, addition under Section 69B, and addition under Section 50C back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to procedural issues, lack of opportunity for the assessee, and potential double taxation.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issues concerning disallowance of interest, disallowance of interest under Section 14A, addition under Section 69B, and addition under Section 50C back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to procedural issues, lack of opportunity for the assessee, and potential double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were invalid because the AO failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and the penalty was levied on different grounds than those initiated. The Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition on account of income declared during the survey by the CIT(A) was not acceptable. However, it partly allowed the assessee's cross-objections regarding salary disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b), deleting a portion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking proper reasoning regarding the cash transactions and sources of funds. Therefore, the entire issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were invalid because the AO failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and the penalty was levied on different grounds than those initiated. The Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were invalid because the AO failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and the penalty was levied on different grounds than those initiated. The Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on the intangible asset (toll collection right) was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years by a co-ordinate bench. Since the facts were identical and no distinguishing features or contrary decisions were presented, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in referring the matter to the DVO because the value adopted by the assessee was higher than the fair market value, and the amendment to Section 55A, which allowed reference when the value was 'at variance', was not retrospective. Therefore, the AO should have followed the law as it existed prior to the amendment.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's revised assessment order did not bring any additional income to tax. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the original assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on the intangible asset (toll collection right) was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years by a co-ordinate bench. Since the facts were identical and no distinguishing features or contrary decisions were presented, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking proper reasoning regarding the cash transactions and sources of funds. Therefore, the entire issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the transfer of land reserved for cattle grazing, as the assessee's rights were not akin to ownership. The transaction was also irregular due to lack of government permission.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable on technical grounds. The AO failed to record specific satisfaction regarding the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied, rendering the initiation and levy of penalty bad in law.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had failed to adjudicate Ground No. 2 in both assessment years. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable on technical grounds because the AO failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being levied. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments regarding the necessity of clear satisfaction by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the alleged 'rate difference' was indeed commission and the primary ground of appeal concerning its disallowance was dismissed. However, the alternate ground regarding the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that mere furnishing of confirmations and PAN is insufficient to prove creditworthiness. The assessee needs to prove the financial capacity of creditors with evidence like bank statements.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had failed to adjudicate Ground No. 2 in both assessment years. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn by the assessee.