ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy of penalty. The AO's satisfaction was ambiguous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy of penalty. The AO's actions created ambiguity regarding the specific default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently treated shares as investments and offered capital gains in past and subsequent assessment years, which were accepted by the Revenue. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if a deduction under Section 80IA(4) was allowed in the first year of the undertaking and not withdrawn, it cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years, even if there are technical breaches, following the ratio of CIT vs. Paul Brothers. The reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were also quashed by the High Court as a change of opinion.

The Tribunal held that while statements from farmers indicated some 'on money' transactions, there was no other evidence to conclusively prove the cash payments. The lack of cross-examination of the farmers further weakened the Revenue's case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy of penalty. The AO's satisfaction was ambiguous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy of penalty. The AO's satisfaction was ambiguous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy of penalty. The AO's satisfaction was ambiguous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy of penalty. The AO's satisfaction was ambiguous.

The Tribunal found that the stock inventory suffered from credibility issues due to corrections and overwritings. The addition on account of excess cash was confirmed. The addition on account of excess stock was reduced.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying Section 50C without considering the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2016, and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to consider this amendment.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for management service fees and, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for de novo adjudication. For the warranty provision, the Tribunal noted the inconsistency in disallowing a consistently made provision and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record proper and specific satisfaction regarding the limb of Section 271(1)(c) applicable, both at the time of initiation and levy of penalty.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was a genuine interest-free loan, which is repayable and not a receipt without consideration. Therefore, Section 56(2)(v) was not applicable.

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. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and did not specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation and levy. The penalty order was quashed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on the difference in sales, finding it unsustainable as it was based on a tentative statement. The addition for suppressed sales was remanded for fresh consideration. The addition for inflated expenses was also partly allowed for statistical purposes and remanded for re-computation.

The Tribunal noted the request from the Revenue to withdraw the appeals. Based on the provided reasons regarding bad debt provisions, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the request from the Revenue to withdraw the appeals. Based on the provided reasons regarding bad debt provisions, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed in contravention of the CBDT Circular and were therefore deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeals if exceptions under the circular were met.

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

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously remanded the issue to the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the Supreme Court's judgment and the High Court's judgment.

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that accrued interest on NPAs is not taxable in the hands of the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's decision. Similarly, the issue of amortization of premium on investments was also decided in favour of the assessee based on previous tribunal rulings.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed in contravention of the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.

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 granted liberty to re-institute the appeals if exceptions applied.

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously remanded the issue to the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the Supreme Court's judgment and the High Court's judgment.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously remanded the issue to the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the Supreme Court's judgment and the High Court's judgment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on a prior decision of the Tribunal in the case of The Sub Registrar Haveli No.10, Pune Vs. DIT (I&CI), Pune (ITA No.969/PUN/2016), which was decided on 24-04-2018. In that case, the Tribunal had observed that the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) had levied penalty under Section 271FA for non-furnishing of statement of financial transaction as envisaged under Section 285BA. The appellant had directly filed an appeal before the Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of filing a first appeal before the appropriate authority as prescribed under the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed that appeal as non-maintainable. Applying the same principle to the present case, the ITAT Pune concluded that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable, and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed as such. No decision was made on the merits of the penalty.

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 granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record valid satisfaction and was ambiguous in specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was levied. The penalty order was quashed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not provide evidence of separate portfolios and the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was justified. The cited judgments were found distinguishable on facts.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied, both at the initiation and penalty order stages. This ambiguity rendered the penalty unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to refer the valuation to the DVO if the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value. The rejection of the assessee's valuation report by the CIT(A) was also noted.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 55A, which allowed reference to the DVO even when the assessee's declared value was higher than the fair market value, would not apply retrospectively to transactions entered into before the amendment. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied, both at the initiation and penalty order stages. This ambiguity rendered the penalty unsustainable in law.

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

The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision for the same assessee, admitted the additional ground regarding the retrospective applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The issue was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the addition under Section 68 for non-genuine share application money and the denial of cross-examination, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) made contradictory observations regarding the necessity of cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, on whose statement the addition was based. The Tribunal also considered the retraction of the statement by Sri Jagdish Purohit. The Tribunal held that the addition was based on conjectures and surmises and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Consequently, the addition under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure, the Tribunal noted that it was based on the statement of a third party without an opportunity for cross-examination, and thus, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal also addressed the legal issue of the validity of the Section 153C notice, but the judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the Tribunal's finding on this specific legal ground. However, the operative part of the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, implying some grounds were allowed and others potentially dismissed or not decided. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order regarding disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, stating that no exempt income was earned and that disallowance should not exceed exempt income, relying on various High Court decisions. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the AO, allowing grounds 2 to 4 in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that for bad debts written off, it is sufficient if they are written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, as per Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd. Advances to contractors were also considered allowable business expenditure.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the addition under Section 68 for non-genuine share application money and the denial of cross-examination, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) made contradictory observations regarding the necessity of cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, on whose statement the addition was based. The Tribunal also considered the retraction of the statement by Sri Jagdish Purohit. The Tribunal held that the addition was based on conjectures and surmises and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Consequently, the addition under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure, the Tribunal noted that it was based on the statement of a third party without an opportunity for cross-examination, and thus, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal also addressed the legal issue of the validity of the Section 153C notice, but the judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the Tribunal's finding on this specific legal ground. However, the operative part of the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, implying some grounds were allowed and others potentially dismissed or not decided. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order regarding disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, stating that no exempt income was earned and that disallowance should not exceed exempt income, relying on various High Court decisions. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the AO, allowing grounds 2 to 4 in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal noted the confusion regarding the two rectification orders passed by the Assessing Officer. It deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the addition under Section 68 for non-genuine share application money and the denial of cross-examination, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) made contradictory observations regarding the necessity of cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, on whose statement the addition was based. The Tribunal also considered the retraction of the statement by Sri Jagdish Purohit. The Tribunal held that the addition was based on conjectures and surmises and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Consequently, the addition under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure, the Tribunal noted that it was based on the statement of a third party without an opportunity for cross-examination, and thus, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal also addressed the legal issue of the validity of the Section 153C notice, but the judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the Tribunal's finding on this specific legal ground. However, the operative part of the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, implying some grounds were allowed and others potentially dismissed or not decided. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order regarding disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, stating that no exempt income was earned and that disallowance should not exceed exempt income, relying on various High Court decisions. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the AO, allowing grounds 2 to 4 in favour of the assessee.