ITAT Pune Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issues were covered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decisions in the assessee's own case. The additional price paid was considered a distribution of profit as per bye-laws, and Section 43(1) was not to be ignored.

The Tribunal had previously deleted the quantum addition of Rs. 34 lakhs. Consequently, the appeal concerning the penalty levied on this addition was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issues were covered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decisions in the assessee's own case. The additional price paid was considered a distribution of profit as per bye-laws, and Section 43(1) was not to be ignored.

The Tribunal held that purchases could not be rejected outright if the assessee maintained quantitative details and had made sales to government departments. However, the addition was restricted by applying a GP rate of 10% on alleged purchases over the declared GP rate.

The Tribunal held that purchases could not be rejected outright if the assessee maintained quantitative details and had made sales to government departments. However, the addition was restricted by applying a GP rate of 10% on alleged purchases over the declared GP rate.

The Tribunal held that the issue raised by the assessee was contentious, and reliance on the DVO's report was not a mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified under Section 154. The order passed under Section 154 was considered to be beneficial to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee can raise an alternate plea for deduction under Section 10A. However, to verify the fulfillment of conditions for Section 10A, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the issue of estimating profit on bogus purchases is covered by a previous Pune Bench decision. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was restricted to 10% of the GP rate on bogus purchases over and above the assessee's declared GP rate.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order and levied penalty on both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars without proper show cause notice. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issues were covered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decisions in the assessee's own case. The additional price paid was considered a distribution of profit as per bye-laws, and Section 43(1) was not to be ignored.

The Tribunal held that Section 10(26AAB) exempts 'any income' of an APMC constituted for regulating agricultural marketing, regardless of the specific activity generating the income. The intention was to exempt the APMC's income, not just income directly from agricultural marketing activities.

The Tribunal held that the seized document was not relatable to the assessee as it pertained to a different flat and tower. In the absence of evidence linking the document to the assessee's purchase, the addition was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be faulted for non-disclosure as the enhanced compensation was determined by a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessees' objections to the reopening by passing a speaking order, as mandated by Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. In the absence of such recorded satisfaction, the additional disallowance under Section 14A was unjustified.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of being prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. It held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer's view was a possible one and not unsustainable in law. The partnership firm was considered a consortium for Section 80IA(4) purposes, and depreciation on the right to collect toll was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be faulted for non-disclosure as the enhanced compensation was determined by a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be faulted for non-disclosure as the enhanced compensation was determined by a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessees' objections to the reopening by passing a speaking order, as mandated by Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the issue of the addition of Rs. 1,70,625/- to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the assessee's affidavit. The contention regarding the assessment being time-barred was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) but reduced the penalty amount. It was held that while the assessee cannot escape responsibility by merely handing over notices to a representative, the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000 for each assessment year.

The Tribunal upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) but reduced the penalty amount. It was held that while the assessee cannot escape responsibility by merely handing over notices to a representative, the penalty should be restricted to Rs. 10,000 for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could claim interest deduction for only one self-occupied flat and directed the Assessing Officer to re-work the disallowance under Section 14A, excluding agricultural land investment and considering the assessee's own funds.

The Tribunal held that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided the issue in favour of the assessee for the same assessment year, deleting the addition. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's written request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that since both the assessee and AO agreed that bank deposits represented business turnover, the addition on account of peak cash credits was not sustainable. However, the addition for undisclosed interest income was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the principle of consistency demands that if an expenditure is allowed in preceding and succeeding years on the same facts, it cannot be disallowed for an intervening period. The increase in export turnover after appointing the agent also supported the genuineness of the arrangement.

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

The tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2009-10 as withdrawn. For AY 2010-11, the tribunal admitted the additional ground and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2009-10 as withdrawn. For AY 2010-11, the tribunal admitted the additional ground and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal granted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as the tax effect involved was significantly less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to the failure of the AO to issue and serve the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the grounds on merits were dismissed as academic.

The Tribunal, following its previous orders in the assessee's own case, decided to estimate agricultural expenditure at 50% for sugarcane and 35% for vegetables, thereby allowing a higher exempt agricultural income.

The Tribunal, following its previous orders in the assessee's own case, decided to estimate agricultural expenditure at 50% for sugarcane and 35% for vegetables, thereby allowing a higher exempt agricultural income.

The Tribunal, following its previous orders in the assessee's own case, decided to estimate agricultural expenditure at 50% for sugarcane and 35% for vegetables, thereby allowing a higher exempt agricultural income.

The Tribunal, following its previous orders in the assessee's own case, decided to estimate agricultural expenditure at 50% for sugarcane and 35% for vegetables, thereby allowing a higher exempt agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing 20% of expenses as arbitrary and without basis, and also erred in allowing expenditure of Rs. 1,61,00,399/- without refuting the AO's conclusion about the mismatch in work descriptions. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing 20% of expenses as arbitrary and without basis, and also erred in allowing expenditure of Rs. 1,61,00,399/- without refuting the AO's conclusion about the mismatch in work descriptions. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the assessment was completed before April 1, 2012, and the notice for reassessment was issued after that date, contrary to CBDT clarification. For AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Tribunal found no infirmity in reassessment but remitted the merits of additions to the Assessing Officer.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the assessment was completed before April 1, 2012, and the notice for reassessment was issued after that date, contrary to CBDT clarification. For AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Tribunal found no infirmity in reassessment but remitted the merits of additions to the Assessing Officer.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the assessment was completed before April 1, 2012, and the notice for reassessment was issued after that date, contrary to CBDT clarification. For AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Tribunal found no infirmity in reassessment but remitted the merits of additions to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains earned on trade sales are directly related to the business operations and should be considered operational income. It was also held that the Safe Harbour Rules (Rule 10TA), relied upon by the TPO and DRP, were not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of excess purchases booked during the year were to be made, but restricted to purchases booked in the relevant financial year. The addition for the written-off amount due from a creditor was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that only real income is taxable and that discrepancies in Form 26AS, if rectified by the payer in a subsequent year, should be allowed to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish revised information to the Assessing Officer.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the assessment was completed before April 1, 2012, and the notice for reassessment was issued after that date, contrary to CBDT clarification. For AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Tribunal found no infirmity in reassessment but remitted the merits of additions to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT's order under Section 263, which directed the fresh assessment, had been quashed by a coordinate bench. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order passed by the AO based on the CIT's direction did not survive.