ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that royalty payments should be aggregated with production and sales activity and could not be benchmarked separately. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat royalty payments and project assistance technical charges as deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the returns were filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees, even if the returns were filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the returns were filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees, even if the returns were filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the condition of holding a plot of land with an area of more than one acre, considering the actual measurements. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on ad hoc additions. Therefore, the levy of penalty in this case was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods before June 1, 2015, even if filed or processed after that date.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late filing fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the demand raised for periods prior to this date is invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction regarding the inclusion of certain comparables. However, the issue concerning the adjustment for intra-group costs was remitted back to the TPO/Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Gujarat High Court's ruling in General Motors India Ltd. The amended provisions of Section 32(2) allow unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward until it is fully set off.

The Tribunal held that certain companies (Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and KALS Information Systems Ltd.) were functionally dissimilar and should be excluded from the comparable set. It directed the AO/TPO to re-determine the margins.

The Tribunal directed that the name of the appellant in the cause title of the order dated 20.07.2018 be corrected. The appellant should be read as 'Finolex Industries Ltd.' and not 'Finolex Cables Ltd.'.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings mentioned concealment of income, but the penalty order invoked furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This ambiguity renders the penalty order unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, agreeing that if the royalty amount was not debited to the Profit & Loss Account and not claimed as expenditure, no disallowance could be made under Section 43B.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, agreeing that if the royalty amount was not debited to the Profit & Loss Account and not claimed as expenditure, no disallowance could be made under Section 43B.

The Tribunal held that certain companies (Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. and KALS Information Systems Ltd.) were functionally dissimilar and should be excluded from the comparable set. It directed the AO/TPO to re-determine the margins.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, agreeing that if the royalty amount was not debited to the Profit & Loss Account and not claimed as expenditure, no disallowance could be made under Section 43B.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were unsustainable in law due to ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for levying the penalty. The Tribunal noted that previous appeals on similar issues had already been decided on this jurisdictional ground.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were unsustainable in law due to ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for levying the penalty. The Tribunal noted that previous appeals on similar issues had already been decided on this jurisdictional ground.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were unsustainable in law due to ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for levying the penalty. The Tribunal noted that previous appeals on similar issues had already been decided on this jurisdictional ground.

The Tribunal held that for Ground No. 1 (Section 57 disallowance), the issue needed to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer due to lack of clarity on the utilization of balance funds. For Ground No. 2 (Section 14A disallowance), the Tribunal also decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) was justified in entertaining a fresh claim for deduction u/s.80IA(4) before the appellate authority, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The manufacturing of Pozzocrete from Fly-Ash qualifies as solid waste management and thus as infrastructural activity.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted under Section 14A as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments. It also held that the ad-hoc disallowance under Section 57 was not justified as the assessee had already restricted its claim.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously held the CIT's order under Section 263 to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the AO, which was based on the Section 263 order, did not survive.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the payment for web hosting services was not in the nature of royalty and that the Indo-USA DTAA overrides the retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for withholding tax.

The Tribunal held that the payment for web hosting services was not in the nature of royalty and that the Indo-USA DTAA overrides the retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for withholding tax.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were unsustainable in law due to ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for levying the penalty. The Tribunal noted that previous appeals on similar issues had already been decided on this jurisdictional ground.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction regarding the inclusion of certain comparables. However, the issue concerning the adjustment for intra-group costs was remitted back to the TPO/Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition because the assessee successfully proved the genuineness of the sundry creditor during the remand proceedings, and the AO could not find anything negative regarding the transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the addition to the extent of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that the assessee had established the receipt and onward transmission of goods but had purchased from the grey market. The Tribunal relied on a previous co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition should be increased by Rs. 21,00,000/- as the assessee provided confirmation from the builder and paid the amount by cheque. The issue regarding Section 54 deduction was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income for prior assessment years which was not disturbed by the revenue. Therefore, the land was considered agricultural, and the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 54B.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 39,260/- for Axis Bank deposits. For Seva Vikas Bank deposits, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the peak negative cash balance and compute the addition accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to make investments yielding exempt income. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed the addition of a balance of Rs. 32,334/- from rent reimbursement and restricted the addition on account of GP rate estimation to 18%. For the unexplained credit, it admitted additional evidence and set aside the issue of Rs. 17,68,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- to the AO for verification, adding Rs. 5,00,000/- to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal upheld the addition to the extent of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that the assessee had established the receipt and onward transmission of goods but had purchased from the grey market. The Tribunal relied on a previous co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to enhance income by introducing a new source of income not considered by the AO. Such additions can only be made through reassessment proceedings (Section 147/148) or revision (Section 263).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had provided creditor confirmations and that the deemed dividend was actually a payment for construction services, not a loan.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's declaration under Section 158A was not valid as it pertained to issues decided in writ jurisdiction, not references or appeals. Following the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the loose sheets concerning bungalow expenditure belonged to a third party and were not conclusive evidence for penalty. It also found that the NSS withdrawal was declared post-search, and the Nepal tour expenditure was not a basis for penalty as the assessee was not required to maintain books.

The tribunal held that deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) is admissible only if the amount is actually paid to the research institute. Since the assessee failed to demonstrate actual payment, the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's declaration under Section 158A was not valid as it pertained to issues decided in writ jurisdiction, not references or appeals. Following the Delhi High Court's judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals.

The Tribunal held that based on previous decisions in similar cases involving the assessee's group concerns, no disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a) was warranted. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that extraordinary wastage costs should be excluded when computing the assessee's operating margin. It also directed the inclusion of two previously rejected comparable companies, K.R. Rubberite Ltd. and Lifelong India Ltd., in the benchmarking analysis.

The Tribunal held that the Naya Raipur Development Authority is not a municipality and the acquired land is located beyond 14.5 kms from Raipur municipal limits. Therefore, the land is not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, and the compensation received is not liable for capital gains tax.