ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed in contravention of the CBDT Circular and were therefore deemed withdrawn or not pressed. The Revenue was given liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not pressed or withdrawn due to contravention of the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal found gaps in the AO's assessment and noted that the exact sale price of molasses over the months was not clear. Since both parties agreed to a remand for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal remanded both issues to the AO.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and that the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and that the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals and that the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as it was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies and factual errors in the orders of the lower authorities regarding the seized documents and the assessee's disclosures. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after re-appreciation of records.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute in all the captioned appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed due to its contravention of the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed created a provision for bad and doubtful reserves and had claimed the deduction in accordance with the law for its rural branch. The authorities below erred in restricting the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to the AO's failure to record proper satisfaction, specifically failing to mention the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy. The penalty orders were quashed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the CBDT Circular which raised the monetary limit for tax effect for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable in law due to the AO's failure to record proper satisfaction, specifically failing to mention the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy. The penalty orders were quashed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in re-adjudicating an issue already decided by the High Court. The Tribunal also found that the outcome of the assessee's rectification application would impact other grounds, leading to a remand.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which raised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The tax effect in this appeal was below this limit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in re-adjudicating an issue already decided by the High Court. The Tribunal also found that the outcome of the assessee's rectification application would impact other grounds, leading to a remand.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as it was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO's order allowing depreciation was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Once assets enter the block of assets, depreciation on their written down value cannot be disturbed in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed as its filing contravened the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not heard. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed or withdrawn due to being in contravention of the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was given liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Revenue had no objection. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty for concealment of income but levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. This ambiguity in specifying the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) renders the penalty invalid.

The Tribunal held that the commercial activities were incidental to the trust's objects and remanded the issue of profit motive and mutuality to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on assets acquired with exempt funds.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, applying the CBDT Circular which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, applying the CBDT Circular which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was given liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions in the circular were met.

The Tribunal held that the deduction should not be denied if the assessee applied for the completion certificate before the due date, even if the local authority delayed issuance. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the application date.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A is to be computed on a standalone basis before setting off any brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that conducting agricultural activities on the land in the two years immediately preceding the transfer is a mandatory condition for claiming exemption under Section 54B. The assessee's reason of water scarcity was not accepted as sufficient.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 15% on the disputed purchases, considering it fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to accept additional evidence, noting the limited time the assessee had to respond to the Assessing Officer's queries. The Tribunal also found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to business loss and disallowance of expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 15% on the disputed purchases, considering it fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to accrued interest on NPAs and broken period interest, following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that accrued interest on NPAs is allowable under Section 43D for cooperative banks, and amortization of premium on 'Held to Maturity' securities is also allowable. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions on these matters.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to accept additional evidence, noting the limited time the assessee had to respond to the Assessing Officer's queries. The Tribunal also found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to business loss and disallowance of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record valid satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings, specifically failing to mention the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c). The penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law.