ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 as the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and made a reasoned order. The CIT's order was found to be based on a misunderstanding of the AO's assessment.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied for either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, not both simultaneously. The Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction for one limb and issuing a notice for both rendered the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that if an application for registration under Section 12A is not disposed of within six months, registration is deemed to be granted from the date of the application. The CIT erred in not considering the earlier application and the deeming provision.

The Tribunal held that if an application for registration under Section 12A is not disposed of within six months, registration is deemed to be granted from the date of the application. The CIT erred in not considering the earlier application and the deeming provision.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that they were not given a proper opportunity to reconcile the differences. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their reconciliation details.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's revision order was unsustainable. It found that some issues raised by the CIT were a change of opinion by the CIT, and for other issues, the CIT failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the erroneous nature of the AO's order and the resulting loss of revenue.

The Tribunal held that any adjustment related to the capital subsidy should be made in the assessment years when the subsidy was due, not in the current assessment year. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was not justified for the year 2010-11.

The Tribunal held that since the grounds raised in the present appeals were identical to those previously decided by a coordinate bench, and no distinguishing material was presented by the Revenue, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked clarity in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c), as he did not specify the limb of the section. The Tribunal also decided that interest on fixed deposits and other deposits, as well as miscellaneous business income, were not eligible for deduction under section 10B. Regarding sundry creditors, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked clarity in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c), as he did not specify the limb of the section. The Tribunal also decided that interest on fixed deposits and other deposits, as well as miscellaneous business income, were not eligible for deduction under section 10B. Regarding sundry creditors, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that 'write back of provision for doubtful debts' and foreign exchange gain/loss should be treated as operating income. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of ±5% variation as per Section 92C(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A should be allowed before setting off losses of other units, citing Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions. Grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments and other issues were either dismissed as not pressed, argumentative, or consequential.

The Tribunal held that the payment to M/s. Imperial Packers was a reimbursement of actual postage expenses borne by them on behalf of the assessee. The invoices clearly indicated this nature and stated no TDS was required.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on ad hoc or estimated additions. Furthermore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note, which mentioned both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) while the penalty was levied only on one.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not lacked inquiry as he had referred the matter to the jurisdictional AO for investigation into the source of capital contributions. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was therefore set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the trust's activities and arrangements were in line with its charitable objects. It was held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus to invoke Section 13(1)(c) for denial of exemption.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unrecorded sales should be restricted to 10% instead of 25% and similarly, the addition on account of bogus purchases should also be restricted to 10%.

The Tribunal held that since the grounds raised in the present appeals were identical to those previously decided by a coordinate bench, and no distinguishing material was presented by the Revenue, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had sufficient own funds, a portion of the interest-free loans were advanced from borrowed funds, as admitted by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was restricted to the admitted amount.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked clarity in initiating and levying penalty under section 271(1)(c), as he did not specify the limb of the section. The Tribunal also decided that interest on fixed deposits and other deposits, as well as miscellaneous business income, were not eligible for deduction under section 10B. Regarding sundry creditors, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and not adjudicating the appeal on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer violated the principles of natural justice and the directions of the jurisdictional High Court by passing the assessment order in undue haste, without granting the mandatory four weeks' time after disposing of objections. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer violated the principles of natural justice and the directions of the jurisdictional High Court by passing the assessment order in undue haste, without granting the mandatory four weeks' time after disposing of objections. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside as bad in law.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available, it can be presumed that the advances were made from these funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.

The Tribunal held that since the grounds raised in the present appeals were identical to those previously decided by a coordinate bench, and no distinguishing material was presented by the Revenue, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

The tribunal allowed the electricity expenses and the write-off of packing material, stating that expenses incurred until the sale of the unit are allowable. However, it dismissed the claim for setting off short-term capital loss against business income, as per Section 71(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that adding the entire cash deposit was not fair as it was linked to business activities. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 25% of the cash deposits, considering the assessee's legal heir's lack of knowledge and the business irregularities.

The Tribunal noted that the revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the claim of the amount being for repairs was unsustainable as seized papers did not support it. However, considering the assessee owned only 50% of the flats, the addition was restricted to 50% of the disputed amount.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's explanation regarding the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of Rs. 30 lakhs from the Rs. 40 lakhs withdrawn, thus not justifying the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs. For the Rs. 3 lakhs addition, the matter was remanded for verification of its inclusion in a settlement application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the legal grounds concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the lack of tangible material. Therefore, these issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issues back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to decide both the validity of reopening and the applicability of Section 43B to service tax.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to consider the encumbrances on the property and the assessee's lack of physical possession. It remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to first decide the applicability of Section 50C considering these factors, and if applicable, to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issues back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to decide both the validity of reopening and the applicability of Section 43B to service tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issues back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to decide both the validity of reopening and the applicability of Section 43B to service tax.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to consider the encumbrances on the property and the assessee's lack of physical possession. It directed the Assessing Officer to first decide if Section 50C was applicable given these circumstances. If applicable, a reference to the Valuation Officer was to be made.

The Tribunal held that co-operative societies are entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest income earned from fixed deposits with nationalized banks, distinguishing it from Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and distinguished contrary High Court rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issues back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to decide both the validity of reopening and the applicability of Section 43B to service tax.

The Tribunal held that co-operative societies are entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest income earned from fixed deposits with nationalized banks, distinguishing it from Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and distinguished contrary High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 was not justified as Explanation 2(a) to Section 147 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2009-10, reopening was upheld, but the addition was deleted on merits, allowing set-off of unexplained receipts against unexplained expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 was not justified as Explanation 2(a) to Section 147 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2009-10, reopening was upheld, but the addition was deleted on merits, allowing set-off of unexplained receipts against unexplained expenditure.

The Tribunal held that co-operative societies are entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest income earned from fixed deposits with nationalized banks, distinguishing it from Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and distinguished contrary High Court rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issues back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to decide both the validity of reopening and the applicability of Section 43B to service tax.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if the payees had paid taxes on the amounts received. If taxes were paid by the payees, no disallowance would be made in the hands of the assessee as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal held that co-operative societies are entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest income earned from fixed deposits with nationalized banks, distinguishing it from Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and distinguished contrary High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to consider the encumbrances on the property and the assessee's lack of physical possession. It remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to first decide the applicability of Section 50C considering these factors, and if applicable, to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 was not justified as Explanation 2(a) to Section 147 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2009-10, reopening was upheld, but the addition was deleted on merits, allowing set-off of unexplained receipts against unexplained expenditure.

The assessee's Authorized Representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal granted the prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) before making a disallowance. In the absence of such satisfaction, the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not sustainable.