ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) to cover the interest-free advances. Therefore, no disallowance of interest was justified as the advances were presumed to be from these own funds, not borrowed ones.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. It also found that the assessee had not understated the sale of scrap and the Assessing Officer failed to establish the same with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiating and levying the penalty. The satisfaction recorded by the AO was ambiguous.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular, which raised the limit to Rs. 20 Lakhs, was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest needs to be re-examined considering the availability of interest-free funds and the period for which loans were given. Regarding capital gains, the Tribunal ruled that they should be taxed in the subsequent year when sales tax liabilities were cleared and attachments were lifted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record valid satisfaction and did not specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiating penalty proceedings and levying the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction recorded during assessment differed from the limb under which penalty was levied, and the notice issued was not specific. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of whether Carpro Netherlands was an Associated Enterprise (AE) lacked proper reasoning. Consequently, this specific issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. It also found that the assessee had not understated the sale of scrap and the Assessing Officer failed to establish the same with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. It also found that the assessee had not understated the sale of scrap and the Assessing Officer failed to establish the same with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it mentioned both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) without specifying which applied. This ambiguity makes the penalty unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. It also found that the assessee had not understated the sale of scrap and the Assessing Officer failed to establish the same with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to follow the binding decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal for the earlier assessment year. The AO's reasoning for not following the order was unsustainable, and the deduction should have been allowed based on the Tribunal's precedent.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiating and levying the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it mentioned both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) without specifying which applied. This ambiguity makes the penalty unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing depreciation on the car as the company had made the investment and used it for business, despite the registration being in the director's name. It also confirmed the exclusion of the capital subsidy from book profits under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal found that the issue of capital gains had not been examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination of the capital gains computation.

The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years, which has already been set off against other business profits, cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible business for computing Section 80IA deduction.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the supplementary partnership deed, availability of surplus funds, and whether money lending was a substantial business activity required examination. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, agreeing that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the substantial claim for provisions. The assessment order was set aside for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that a revised return filed within the prescribed time under Section 139(5) can be considered for claiming carry forward of losses, even if the original return was filed under Section 139(1) with positive income. The revised return replaces the original one for all purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions. The cash deposits were deemed unexplained due to the lack of satisfactory explanation regarding their source and purpose. Similarly, expenses claimed for removing encroachments and land improvements were disallowed for lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by directing that additions to the extent of Rs. 25,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice regarding the rejection of books of account for liquor business. For the second ground concerning ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal held that no such disallowance was called for.