ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not discharged the onus of proof regarding the reassessment and that the issue of amortization was raised for the first time before the CIT(A). Therefore, all issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus regarding the reassessment proceedings. Considering the complexities of the developer vs. contractor issue and the amortization claim, the Tribunal remanded all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus regarding the reassessment proceedings. Considering the complexities of the developer vs. contractor issue and the amortization claim, the Tribunal remanded all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the assessee's request for fresh examination to be fair and reasonable. The issue was remanded to the AO for a thorough investigation of the cash deposit sources and the parties involved, with a direction to examine the contractors and grant the assessee a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the disallowance to 25% of bogus purchases was fair and reasonable, considering the trail of goods and payments. The Revenue's argument for confirming the entire addition was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors needed to be examined afresh. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee to demonstrate the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the profit arising from the sale of rural agricultural land is not taxable as it is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The transaction was not considered an adventure in the nature of trade.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully substantiated, disallowing the entire amount was not justified, especially when invoices and payments were made via account payee cheques. The Tribunal directed that the addition should be restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding that the grounds were covered by a previous order. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the quantification of the disallowed amount was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the AO for re-adjudication on actual figures.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the cash found did not belong to the assessee but to other family members, whose explanations were accepted by the AO in their individual assessments. Therefore, the addition in the assessee's hands was unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, confirming that the income from the sale of shares should be treated as business income. The assessee's change of stand from business income to capital gains was not considered credible.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be defective for ignoring relevant legal propositions and settled case law. The Tribunal remanded both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the facts and legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court for disposing of objections against reassessment notices. Therefore, the reassessment order was declared invalid.

The Tribunal found that a declaration from co-owners regarding the purchase for constructing bungalows and a temple required further scrutiny. The CIT(A) had failed to call for a remand report on this declaration.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, the distance from municipal limits should be measured by road, not aerially. The amended provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) were held to be prospective and not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from a scheduled bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal on similar issues.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had entered into an APA and filed a modified return of income. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. The tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 10 Lakhs, which is the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred on the R&D facility, as the facility was approved and the relevant rules prior to 2016 did not prescribe a year-to-year approval methodology for expenditure. The order of the Assessing Officer in curtailing the deduction was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record specific satisfaction for one of the limbs (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and issue a show-cause notice accordingly. Issuing a notice for both limbs without striking off the inappropriate one renders the penalty order unsustainable.

The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record specific satisfaction for one limb of section 271(1)(c) and issue a show-cause notice accordingly. Issuing a notice for both limbs without striking off the inappropriate one renders the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted when the interest income earned by the assessee exceeds the interest expenditure incurred. However, since the assessee did not appeal the restricted disallowance, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for comparability, the accounting periods must match. Since the two disputed companies had different accounting periods than the assessee, they should be excluded. However, due to the assessee's margins being within the acceptable range even after exclusion, no transfer pricing adjustment was required.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by its own previous orders and decisions of the Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of how accounts were maintained regarding sale discounts.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had misunderstood the scheme and the purpose of the subsidy. It noted that subsidies for encouraging industrial setup in backward areas are generally considered capital receipts. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked clarity in recording satisfaction for initiating and levying the penalty, failing to specify the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) applicable. This technical flaw rendered the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was deleted, there was no merit in levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by its own previous orders and decisions of the Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of how accounts were maintained regarding sale discounts.

The Tribunal held that the transaction of exporting packing material (spools) to an associated enterprise, where the assessee charged actual cost plus a 10% markup on direct cost, was at arm's length. Therefore, no adjustment was warranted for this transaction.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable when no exempt income is earned or forms part of the total income. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance on driver's salary and depreciation on vehicles.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable when no exempt income is earned or forms part of the total income. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance on driver's salary and depreciation on vehicles, finding the CIT(A)'s order to be fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper hearing, violating the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits, arising from parking surplus funds, is an integral part of the export business activity and eligible for deduction under Section 10A. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 10A on the interest earned.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction for a specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) and issue a notice accordingly. Initiating proceedings for both limbs and failing to strike out inappropriate portions of the notice renders the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided to be genuine. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to confusion and ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. The initiation of penalty proceedings for one limb and levy for another was found to be legally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law due to ambiguity in the charge levied by the Assessing Officer. The satisfaction for initiating penalty was for one limb of Section 271(1)(c), while the penalty was levied under another limb.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of computing book profits by setting off brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation was correct, and the MAT credit entitlement should not be included. Regarding transfer pricing, several companies were directed to be excluded from the list of comparables.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment order did not refer to the contents of the CDs provided during the survey. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the contents of the CDs.