ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal, considering a similar past case where it reduced the disallowance, found the facts to be identical. It held that restricting the disallowance to Rs. 4,00,000 would be reasonable and meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05, primarily due to low tax effect for the earlier year and lack of incriminating material for the subsequent years. The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2004-05 was allowed, deleting the addition on construction cost based on a prior ruling.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the reclassification of income was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed under Section 54F were not allowable as they did not form part of the cost of acquisition. However, it found that the sale of equity shares was genuine, supported by documentary evidence, and the disallowance of the short-term capital loss was not sustainable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the addition on account of under-valuation of closing stock. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of additions related to fictitious transactions and Section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned. It also found that the interest paid to the partner was within the permissible limits as per the partnership deed and previous tribunal rulings, thus no addition was required. The assessee's ground regarding time-barring was not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05, primarily due to low tax effect for the earlier year and lack of incriminating material for the subsequent years. The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2004-05 was allowed, deleting the addition on construction cost based on a prior ruling.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54F can be claimed even if the new asset is purchased in the name of the spouse or jointly, especially when the investment is made for financial security and due to the assessee's mental condition. The objective of Section 54F is to encourage investment in residential houses and should be interpreted liberally.

The Tribunal held that the seized document pertained to the period prior to 01-04-2010, making the addition in AY 2010-11 correct. The CIT(A) had directed a reduction in AY 2012-13 to avoid double taxation, which was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not the legal owner of the land, and thus capital gains could not accrue to him. However, the claim of the land being ancestral property was not categorically decided by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that initiating penalty under one section and levying it under another demonstrates a complete non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also erred in not recognizing this discrepancy.

The Tribunal held that after allowing personnel cost and depreciation adjustments, the assessee's adjusted operating profit margin fell within the +/- 5% range of the comparable companies. Therefore, no further adjustment was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned. It also found that the interest paid to the partner was within the permissible limits as per the partnership deed and previous tribunal rulings, thus no addition was required. The assessee's ground regarding time-barring was not pressed.

The Tribunal held that two companies, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and Kals Information Systems Ltd., were not functionally comparable and should be excluded from the list of comparable entities. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow working capital adjustment to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the additional income was voluntarily disclosed in the return filed within the permissible time after the survey, and no concealment was found, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05, primarily due to low tax effect for the earlier year and lack of incriminating material for the subsequent years. The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2004-05 was allowed, deleting the addition on construction cost based on a prior ruling.

The Tribunal held that the 'right to collect toll' is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision based on earlier precedents.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed the disallowance of expenses to be restricted to Rs. 5 lakhs, finding the AO's 10% ad-hoc disallowance unsustainable. Other grounds were not pressed or dismissed.

The Tribunal held that mere non-mention of seasonal crops in the 7/12 extract does not invalidate the claim of agricultural income. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate agricultural income based on 80% of standard yields reported by ICAR and NHB for vegetables, flowers, and fruits.

The Tribunal held that after allowing personnel cost and depreciation adjustments, the assessee's adjusted operating profit margin fell within the +/- 5% range of the comparable companies. Therefore, no further adjustment was warranted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05, primarily due to low tax effect for the earlier year and lack of incriminating material for the subsequent years. The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2004-05 was allowed, deleting the addition on construction cost based on a prior ruling.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the addition on account of under-valuation of closing stock. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of additions related to fictitious transactions and Section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could agitate the addition before the CIT(A) as evidence was subsequently available and properly examined. The Tribunal also noted that a bank passbook cannot be considered a book of the assessee for the purpose of Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the seized document pertained to the period prior to 01-04-2010, making the addition in AY 2010-11 correct. The CIT(A) had directed a reduction in AY 2012-13 to avoid double taxation, which was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the taxability of interest received on enhanced compensation depends on whether it was awarded under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Interest under Section 28 is not taxable, while interest under Section 34 is taxable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issue of depreciation on goodwill and non-compete fees had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed due to the CBDT circular. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that income from fisheries is business income, as it is one of the enumerated activities of the corporation. It also held that depreciation is allowable on assets used for business purposes, even if the income generated is not substantial.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period available under the proviso to Section 153C read with the proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period available under the proviso to Section 153C read with the proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record specific satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and levy penalty on a particular limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Recording satisfaction on both limbs and levying penalty on both is invalid. The penalty order was held to be invalid and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law because no additions were made on the specific grounds for which the reassessment was initiated. Therefore, the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-attendance due to non-receipt of notices at the old address. It also found merit in the argument that the appeal was filed within the extended time for e-filing.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period available under the proviso to Section 153C read with the proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable in law because the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for concealment of income but levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decided the issues on merits. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law because no additions were made on the specific grounds for which the reassessment was initiated. Therefore, the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that gains from the sale of shares, where the shares were held as investments and declared as such in the balance sheet, should be treated as capital gains, not business income. This decision was influenced by CBDT circulars and jurisdictional High Court rulings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed due to the CBDT circular. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot adopt an FMV as on 01.04.1981 lower than that declared by the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's ruling. The issue of Section 54F deduction was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the adoption of turnover based on bank deposits, as the assessee failed to explain the nature of the cash deposits. However, the Gross Profit rate was reduced from 8.76% to 7% to work out the additional income.

The Tribunal upheld the adoption of turnover based on bank deposits, as the assessee failed to explain the nature of the cash deposits. However, the Gross Profit rate was reduced from 8.76% to 7% to work out the additional income.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal was deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed due to its contravention of the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot adopt an FMV as on 01.04.1981 lower than that declared by the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's ruling. The issue of Section 54F deduction was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of purchases from hawala dealers has been decided in similar cases, and the net profit rate should be applied. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's declared GP rate and decide the addition accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the overriding provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act allow interest on capital borrowed for business purposes as a deduction. Accounting standards cannot override the Act, and disallowance based on them is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous order for a different assessment year, which relied on a Gujarat High Court decision. This decision allowed the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation, overruling a Special Bench ruling.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A. However, it allowed the expenses reimbursed to consultants for brand development activities as no TDS was required on reimbursements. The payment made for legal services rendered outside India was also allowed.