ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that additional evidence can be admitted in proceedings under section 263 if reasonable cause is shown. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-measurement of the plot.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to issue a proper show cause notice before making a significant addition, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the commission payment was a reasonable business expenditure given the assessee's substantial earnings from land dealings. The invocation of the matching principle was deemed inappropriate for this business.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to issue a proper show cause notice before making a significant addition, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to add only 20% of the bogus purchases was a plausible view, making the issue debatable. The Pr.CIT's revisionary order was found to be outside the scope of Section 263 as it sought to thrust another view on a debatable issue. The Pr.CIT's findings on sundry creditors were also deemed too general and unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. They found that the issue of taxing interest on NPAs is settled in favour of the assessee, citing previous judgments in the assessee's own case and other cooperative banks.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions on account of interest accrued on NPAs was justified, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the amortization of premium on HTM securities was also allowed, based on established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay due to issues with the updated Return Preparation Utility. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was not liable for the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) in light of Section 273B.

The Tribunal noted that the nature of the payment (bonus vs. variable pay) and its linkage to turnover needed deeper examination. It also considered that a Special Bench decision relied upon by the AO had been reversed by the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to add only 20% of the bogus purchases was a plausible view, making the issue debatable. The Pr.CIT's revisionary order was found to be outside the scope of Section 263 as it sought to thrust another view on a debatable issue. The Pr.CIT's findings on sundry creditors were also deemed too general and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was time-barred and the DVO's report was not received, the Assessing Officer could not have made a reference under Section 55A. Therefore, the valuation adopted by the assessee was accepted.

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.

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

The Tribunal held that the income offered was final and not conditional, and the assessee's argument regarding estimations was unsustainable. The admission of concealed income during survey, especially by a professional, formed a sound basis for penalty.

The Tribunal held that the 'source of source' for loans is not required to be proved if the loan itself is substantiated. It also found merit in allowing rent expenses based on a prior year's assessment, but restricted the guarantee commission disallowance.

The Tribunal held that while the AO did dispose of the assessee's objections, the assessment order was passed in violation of the timeline prescribed by the jurisdictional High Court, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was bad in law and void ab initio because it violated CBDT instructions regarding limited scrutiny and required administrative approval for expanding the scope. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were annulled.

The Tribunal held that while the AO did dispose of the assessee's objections, the assessment order was passed in violation of the timeline prescribed by the jurisdictional High Court, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to add only 20% of the bogus purchases was a plausible view, making the Pr.CIT's revision unsustainable. The Tribunal also found the Pr.CIT's observations regarding sundry creditors to be too general and lacking specific findings of error or prejudice to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the income offered was final and not conditional, and the assessee's argument regarding estimations was unsustainable. The admission of concealed income during survey, especially by a professional, formed a sound basis for penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to add only 20% of the bogus purchases was a plausible view, making the Pr.CIT's revision unsustainable. The Tribunal also found the Pr.CIT's observations regarding sundry creditors to be too general and lacking specific findings of error or prejudice to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to add only 20% of the bogus purchases was a plausible view, making the Pr.CIT's revision unsustainable. The Tribunal also found the Pr.CIT's observations regarding sundry creditors to be too general and lacking specific findings of error or prejudice to revenue.