ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2018

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a correction deed showing a revised market value of Rs. 44,35,380/-. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be made with respect to international transactions only, not the entire segment. It also directed the TPO to reconsider the comparable companies and the operating margin calculation for ADF Foods Ltd.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to leasehold land. The addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the additional income, if linked to business activities, should be treated as business income and not 'deemed income'. Consequently, the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses against such income should be allowed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding duplication and accounted sources from Indian bank accounts, directing the AO to reduce the additions. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground regarding telescoping and remanded it to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) had made inquiries and received replies from the assessee before passing the assessment order. The CIT's order directing further verification did not establish a conclusive error in the AO's order.

The Tribunal held that interest on NPAs, which had not accrued, would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court. The decision of the CIT(A) was considered fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable for completed parts of a housing project that fulfill the conditions. The Assessing Officer's interpretation of the relevant High Court judgment was considered incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no admission of bogus purchases from M/s. Manvir Metals Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee's partner. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously held these purchases to be genuine, and the Revenue had not appealed that decision in a related case.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be computed before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and evidence related to the Section 12AA registration. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the new registration and its implications.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant credit for the actual sale proceeds of the agricultural land but dismissed the appeal regarding the unexplained cash deposit, as the assessee failed to provide evidence.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds of appeal regarding the aggregation of services with manufacturing and adjustments for import costs were not sustainable, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also directed that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions with associated enterprises.

The Tribunal held that the discount received on pre-payment of sales tax liability under the deferral scheme does not constitute remission or cessation of liability. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the discount received on pre-payment of sales tax liability under the deferral scheme does not constitute remission or cessation of liability. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

The tribunal allowed the claim for balance additional depreciation, following a Karnataka High Court ruling. It also directed a re-computation of the arm's length price for Oracle support services after excluding a specific comparable company.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds of appeal regarding the aggregation of services with manufacturing and adjustments for import costs were not sustainable, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also directed that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions with associated enterprises.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding duplication and accounted sources from Indian bank accounts, directing the AO to reduce the additions. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground regarding telescoping and remanded it to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding duplication and accounted sources from Indian bank accounts, directing the AO to reduce the additions. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground regarding telescoping and remanded it to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be computed before setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.

The Tribunal held that taxing the entire sale proceeds would amount to double taxation as the purchase consideration was already added in a previous assessment year. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to the long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the additional income, if linked to business activities, should be treated as business income and not 'deemed income'. Consequently, the benefit of set-off of brought forward losses against such income should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to form a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were deemed without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition on account of undisclosed sales by applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 4%. It also allowed the benefit of telescoping for excess stock and cash found during the survey against the additional income assessed.

The Tribunal held that the TNMM method should be applied for transfer pricing, and directed the AO to verify the claim. It also allowed depreciation on repairs capitalized in earlier years and consequential effects of insurance claim adjustments. Some grounds were dismissed as infructuous or covered by earlier orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay due to the initial complexities of e-TDS filing and system issues. Therefore, the penalty under section 272A(2)(k) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to form a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were deemed without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied if there is concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the Income Tax return. Since the assessee made a complete disclosure in the return and offered the surrendered amount for tax, there was no concealment attracting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the TPO/AO should determine the arm's length price by applying the most appropriate method, considering the assessee's plea for internal TNMM of man-hour rates and other adjustments. The matter was remitted back to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged an error in its previous order and issued a corrigendum. The corrected order clarifies that the computation of income and demand notice were indeed issued in the name of the amalgamating company, Akzo Nobel Chemicals (India) Limited.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow risk adjustment and re-compute the margins of comparables, relying on previous decisions. It also ordered verification of a comparable company's financials and inclusion if found functionally comparable.

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

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not complied with as the assessee could not appear due to a family death and subsequent issues. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's allegations of violating Section 13 did not materialize as the CIT(A) deleted the related additions. Consequently, the trust was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the AO's allegations of violating Section 13 did not materialize as the CIT(A) deleted the related additions. Consequently, the trust was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not complied with as the assessee could not appear due to a family death and subsequent issues. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's allegations of violating Section 13 did not materialize as the CIT(A) deleted the related additions. Consequently, the trust was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO alleging violations of Section 13(1)(c) did not fructify, and the CIT(A) had deleted them. Since no damage was found to the trust's objects, the grounds for exemption were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars rendered the penalty order unsustainable in law. The AO lacked clarity and suffered from ambiguity in his decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, citing the introduction of a new e-filing procedure and an amalgamation event. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) should be deleted.

The tribunal held that a portion of the addition of Rs. 1.61 crores was not sustainable and ordered its deletion. Regarding the Rs. 50,59,040 addition, the tribunal found that the expenditure was correctly capitalized by the assessee and allowed the appeal on this point.

The tribunal held that a portion of the addition of Rs. 1.61 crores was not sustainable and ordered its deletion. Regarding the Rs. 50,59,040 addition, the tribunal found that the expenditure was correctly capitalized by the assessee and allowed the appeal on this point.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing the identity, creditworthiness, and banking transaction details of the lender. The Tribunal found no evidence that the cash deposit belonged to the assessee and stated that any issue with the lender's cash deposit was for the Revenue to address with the lender.

The tribunal held that a portion of the addition of Rs. 1.61 crores was not sustainable and ordered its deletion. Regarding the Rs. 50,59,040 addition, the tribunal found that the expenditure was correctly capitalized by the assessee and allowed the appeal on this point.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars rendered the penalty order unsustainable in law. The AO lacked clarity and suffered from ambiguity in his decision.