ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory for assessments u/s 153A, and some grounds were dismissed as not pressed. Additions made without incriminating material were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory for assessments u/s 153A, and some grounds were dismissed as not pressed. Additions made without incriminating material were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory for assessments u/s 153A, and some grounds were dismissed as not pressed. Additions made without incriminating material were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Additionally, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable due to the Assessing Officer's ambiguous recording of satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted partial relief based on payments made and outstanding payables. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a previous Tribunal ruling and a High Court decision where similar subsidies were held to be capital in nature. The Revenue failed to provide contrary material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the Revenue's grounds. It noted that the issues were identical to previous years where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, and the AO had not established the unreasonableness of payments made to the interested party.

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 Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

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 Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

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 Therefore, the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed as per the CBDT Circular.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limits set by the CBDT. Without going into the merits, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that since the AO allowed normal depreciation on the capitalized sundry expenses, the assessee was also eligible for additional depreciation. The denial of additional depreciation by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, allowing a portion of the repairs and maintenance expenses and the Section 80IA claim, while disallowing the legal expenses and compensation.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record valid satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings by not specifying the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c). The penalty order is therefore unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the fact that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the AO allowed normal depreciation on the capitalized sundry expenses, the assessee was also eligible for additional depreciation. The denial of additional depreciation by the lower authorities was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxing the sale proceeds under the head 'capital gains' was settled for AY 2007-08, and the revenue's attempt to tax it as business income for subsequent years violated the principle of consistency. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was an infructuous exercise due to the allowability of deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal also directed the AO to examine a suo moto disallowance made by the assessee before granting relief.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as their filing contravened the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was an infructuous exercise due to the allowability of deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Tribunal also directed the AO to examine a suo moto disallowance made by the assessee before granting relief.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as their filing contravened the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxing the sale proceeds under the head 'capital gains' was settled for AY 2007-08, and the revenue's attempt to tax it as business income for subsequent years violated the principle of consistency. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, allowing a portion of the repairs and maintenance expenses and the Section 80IA claim, while disallowing the legal expenses and compensation.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as their filing contravened the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed as their filing contravened the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if exceptions applied.