ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid when Section 153C was applicable. Therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) were also invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the variation in Gross Profit rates is not a sustainable ground for rejecting books of accounts under Section 145(3) when the AO has not pointed out any discrepancies or defects in the accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. However, it restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 10% of the alleged amount, considering that the assessee had maintained quantitative details of purchases and sales.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, it reduced the addition for alleged bogus purchases from 25% to 10%, following its own precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, it reduced the addition for alleged bogus purchases from 25% to 10% of the purchase value, following its own precedents.

The Tribunal held that reasonable opportunity of hearing needs to be allowed to the assessee, even though notices were issued. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets, even if their cost was allowed as application of income, is permissible for trusts. This is based on the principle of computing income on commercial lines and is supported by Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that excise duty liability crystallizes upon removal of goods, not on stock in trade within the premises. Regarding PF/ESI, it was held that since payments were made before the return filing date, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus of proving the excessiveness or unreasonableness of the commission payments by not collecting comparable data. The applicability of Section 40A(ia) was also not conclusively established by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the cut-off date mentioned on the STPI certificate is irrelevant for claiming deduction under Section 10A. The deduction should be allowed for the entire year, following established legal propositions and the Tribunal's own decision in the assessee's case for a subsequent year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a GP rate due to the assessee's failure to produce evidence for claimed expenses. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply a GP rate of 1% on the total turnover.

The Tribunal, referring to its previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments, held that interest income earned on fixed deposits with nationalized banks by a co-operative society is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 147 days, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the ownership of the residential house at Pristine Fontana, Bavdhan, Pune, was a dominant issue requiring further examination. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to determine whether the property belonged to the individual or the HUF.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets, even if their cost was allowed as application of income, is permissible for trusts. This is based on the principle of computing income on commercial lines and is supported by Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that issuing a demand notice and penalty notice along with a draft assessment order is contrary to the procedure laid down in Section 144C. Therefore, the draft assessment order was considered invalid in law.

The Tribunal held that issuing a demand notice and penalty notice along with a draft assessment order is contrary to the procedure laid down in Section 144C. Therefore, the draft assessment order was considered invalid in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated penalty proceedings for 'concealing particulars of income' but levied it for both 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' and 'concealing particulars'. This ambiguity renders the penalty order unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the addition on account of capital introduction, finding that the withdrawal from one concern was undisputed. For disallowances of expenses, the Tribunal reduced the quantum of disallowance, deeming the original amounts arbitrary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS as they had collected PAN numbers of transporters as per Section 194C(6). The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's alternate claim for deduction under Section 10A should be examined. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim, considering the circumstances under which the alternate claim was made.

The Tribunal held that amortization of premium paid on investments classified under the HTM category, amortized over the period till maturity, is allowable as business expenditure. This decision was based on previous Tribunal orders and the Bombay High Court ruling in CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the TPO wrongly applied the CUP method for determining ALP in respect of some transactions. It also found that the DRP/Assessing Officer could not deviate from the settled position of accepting the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction under Section 80IA. Following the Madras High Court's decision, it was held that notional carrying forward of losses and depreciation already set off against other income is not required for computing deduction.

The Tribunal held that the TPO wrongly applied the CUP method for determining ALP in respect of some transactions. It also found that the DRP/Assessing Officer could not deviate from the settled position of accepting the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous assessment years where similar additions were deleted. Relying on its own previous decisions, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the excess of liabilities over assets of the merged banks constitutes an allowable deduction, specifically as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This was based on previous tribunal decisions on similar facts.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, it restricted the addition for bogus purchases to 10% of the amount, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years (2006-07 to 2009-10), the assessee could not claim deduction under section 80IA(4) as it was a fresh claim made in the 153A return. However, for abated assessment years (2010-11 to 2012-13), the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years (2006-07 to 2009-10), the assessee could not claim deduction under section 80IA(4) as it was a fresh claim made in the 153A return. However, for abated assessment years (2010-11 to 2012-13), the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years (2006-07 to 2009-10), the assessee could not claim deduction under section 80IA(4) as it was a fresh claim made in the 153A return. However, for abated assessment years (2010-11 to 2012-13), the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, it restricted the addition for bogus purchases to 10% of the amount, considering that the assessee had some supporting documents like bills and bank statements.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings and the issuance of notices. Regarding the addition for bogus purchases, the Tribunal directed that a 10% Gross Profit rate over the declared GP should be applied to calculate the additional income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it fair and reasonable. While transactions were established with evidence of goods trail and payment, a 25% disallowance was deemed appropriate to account for potential purchases from the open market.

The Tribunal held that since all payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a pro-rata deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the completed buildings. The non-completion of buildings B and C does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction for the completed portion of the project.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence presented by the assessee, which included acknowledgments of earlier returns and capital accounts. It held that these documents needed to be examined by the Assessing Officer to determine the genuineness of the opening capital balance.

The Tribunal held that the excess of liabilities over assets of the merged banks constitutes an allowable deduction, specifically as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This was based on previous tribunal decisions on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that Rule 6DD(g) was not applicable as the recipient, M/s. J.K. Wines, was located in Jalgaon where banking facilities were available. However, payments made on bank holidays were found to be covered under Rule 6DD(j), and thus, the disallowance for those specific payments was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the prior period expenses were not claimed as deductions for the current year, they should not be included when determining the PLI for the year under consideration. The DRP's direction to exclude these expenses was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years (2006-07 to 2009-10), the assessee could not claim deduction under section 80IA(4) as it was a fresh claim made in the 153A return. However, for abated assessment years (2010-11 to 2012-13), the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal followed its own precedent and that of the Delhi High Court, allowing the alternate claim for deduction under Section 10A. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80IB(10) is debatable. Following the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., a debatable issue does not automatically lead to concealment of income, thus upholding the deletion of penalty.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years (2006-07 to 2009-10), no fresh claim for deduction under section 80IA(4) could be made in the return filed under section 153A. However, for abated assessment years (2010-11 to 2012-13), the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee despite a written request. Consequently, the grounds raised on merits were dismissed as academic.

The Tribunal held that although the assessee did not debit the amount to a bad debts account, the entries made in the party's account and receipts account indicated the intention to write off the debt. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal held that income from fisheries is business income as it is one of the enumerated functions of the assessee. It also held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on the reservoir as it was put to use, evidenced by income generated from fishing contracts.

The Tribunal held that income from fisheries is business income as it is one of the enumerated functions of the assessee. It also held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on the reservoir as it was put to use, evidenced by income generated from fishing contracts.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80IB(10) is debatable. Following the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., a debatable issue does not automatically lead to concealment of income, thus upholding the deletion of penalty.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years (2006-07 to 2009-10), the assessee could not claim deduction under section 80IA(4) as it was a fresh claim made in the 153A return. However, for abated assessment years (2010-11 to 2012-13), the assessee was entitled to the deduction.