ITAT Pune Judgments — April 2018

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) for both concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars when the initial satisfaction was only for concealment. Such an order suffers from infirmity and is therefore cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty under both limbs of section 271(1)(c) when the initiation and satisfaction were primarily for concealment of income. The penalty order was found to be infirm due to this dual levy without proper justification.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B and the reasonable cause that non-existent books cannot be audited.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of addition under Section 68 and the partial disallowance of expenditure.

The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed after considering the indexed cost of acquisition as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had failed to consider the indexation benefit.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B and the reasonable cause that non-existent books cannot be audited.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B and the reasonable cause that non-existent books cannot be audited.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B and the reasonable cause that non-existent books cannot be audited.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B and the reasonable cause that non-existent books cannot be audited.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B and the reasonable cause that non-existent books cannot be audited.

The Tribunal held that since the information was found during a search on another person's premises and pertained to the assessee, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 147 was void.

The Tribunal held that since the information was found during a search on another person's premises and pertained to the assessee, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 147 was void.

The Tribunal held that since the information was found during a search on another person's premises and pertained to the assessee, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 147 was void.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it directly as the appellant had not exhausted the remedy of filing a first appeal before the appropriate authority as prescribed by the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B as the assessee had reasonable cause due to the non-existence of books.

The Tribunal held that since the information was found during a search on another person's premises and pertained to the assessee, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 147 was void.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue. It found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the deletion of addition under Section 68 and the partial disallowance of expenditure.

The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed after considering the indexed cost of acquisition as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had failed to consider the indexation benefit.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty for failure to maintain books of accounts under Section 271A, as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the penalty for failure to audit under Section 271B was deleted, citing Section 273B and the reasonable cause that non-existent books cannot be audited.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it as the appellant had not exhausted the remedy of filing a first appeal before the appropriate authority as prescribed by the Act.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was incorrect. The sellers' statements indicated they had no objection to receiving the entire consideration by cheque, implying the cash payment was not necessitated by their insistence.

The Tribunal held that the income from warehousing activities should be assessed as business income, not income from house property. The assessee is entitled to claim expenditure against this business income.

The Tribunal held that a nexus between the borrowed loan and its utilization for construction was established, even though it was routed through the assessee's capital account in the partnership firm. Therefore, the interest paid on the loan should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the gross area of the plot, which was measured at 4077.21 sq.mtrs. (more than one acre), should be considered for the deduction, even though a portion was earmarked for a road. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) is therefore allowed.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vii) of the Act, following its own earlier decisions in the assessee's case. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the authorities below in computing the total receipts by including the previous year's untaxed receipts and applying an estimated net profit rate. The ex-parte assessment was also deemed valid due to the assessee's non-compliance.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to admit additional evidence and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the evidence and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of penalty proceedings on both limbs ('concealment' and 'inaccurate particulars') and levying penalty on only one limb ('inaccurate particulars') was legally unsustainable due to ambiguity. The penalty order was found to be technically flawed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's draft assessment order, which determined the final demand and initiated penalty, was invalid as it did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 144C. Consequently, the subsequent order was also deemed invalid.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if loans to associated enterprises were at LIBOR+ or WIBOR+ rates, and if so, the transaction is at ALP. The Tribunal also held that the AO failed to record satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A, reversing the addition.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted. Since the documentary evidence regarding purchases and their trail was not considered by the lower authorities, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the sale of development rights as an adventure in the nature of trade without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, especially when it resulted in an enhancement of income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside, the subsequent assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 had no merit. Therefore, the additions made were rightly deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of penalty proceedings lacked clarity and specificity regarding the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). This technical defect rendered the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D was not valid as it was done after the completion of assessment proceedings for the related parties. Furthermore, the penalty order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that a security deposit received by the assessee for letting out his property was outside the scope of Section 2(22)(e). However, an issue regarding payments to labour contractors was remanded for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's failure to discharge the onus.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271D was not valid as it was done after the completion of assessment proceedings for the related parties. Furthermore, the penalty order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, finding no justification for it given the audited accounts and the absence of specific disallowance reasons. However, other grounds related to disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 40A(3) were not fully allowed.

The Tribunal held that the rent paid for machinery was not excessive or unreasonable, especially considering quotations from other parties. Regarding interest on borrowed funds, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and jurisdictional High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the rent paid for machinery was not excessive or unreasonable, especially considering quotations from other parties. Regarding interest on borrowed funds, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and jurisdictional High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that a security deposit received by the assessee for letting out his property was outside the scope of Section 2(22)(e). However, an issue regarding payments to labour contractors was remanded for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's failure to discharge the onus.

The Tribunal held that common areas, amenity spaces, and transformer areas must be included when calculating the plot size for the purpose of the 'one acre' condition under Section 80IB(10). The CIT(A)'s order was found to be fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1.75 crores for money lending business was unjustified as the assessee established the 'bhishi' business with supporting evidence. However, additions for unexplained investment in house property, shares, and Tempo Trax were upheld due to lack of proof of source.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection due to the delay. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, with one ground remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication and another ground dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the peculiar circumstances. It also upheld the addition of sundry creditors but restricted it to 10% of the total purchases, considering past and subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The CBDT's revised instructions set a minimum tax effect for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the non-receipt of Form No. 3CM for the intervening period was a procedural lapse and not fatal to the deduction claim, as the R&D facility's recognition was maintained. The Tribunal also held that Section 43B was not attracted to delayed leave encashment payments as the relevant clause had been struck down.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The CBDT's instructions specify a minimum tax effect for appeals to be filed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(a) as the CIT(A) had found no brought forward losses and the issue was covered by the Tribunal's own decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.