ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that advances made to other educational institutions, where trustees are common, violate Section 13(1)(c). Consequently, such advances cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 11 and are brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's international transactions were at arm's length, as its earned margins were higher than comparable entities. Regarding book profits, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to claim a deduction for unabsorbed depreciation or brought forward losses, remanding the computation to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide sufficient reasoning for not adjusting all inventories, particularly the purchases account, concerning VAT. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and necessary adjustments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked sufficient reasoning regarding the adjustment of inventories for VAT, particularly concerning the purchases account. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and necessary adjustments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked sufficient reasoning regarding the adjustment of inventories for VAT, particularly concerning the purchases account. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and necessary adjustments.

The Tribunal held that advances made to other educational institutions, where trustees are common, violate Section 13(1)(c). Consequently, such advances cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 11 and are brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that advances made to other educational institutions, where trustees are common, violate Section 13(1)(c). Consequently, such advances cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 11 and are brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, had incurred a definite liability under the warranty provision. This liability, even if to be discharged later or pursued for reimbursement, was deductible as per Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that advances made to other educational institutions, where trustees are common, violate Section 13(1)(c). Consequently, such advances cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 11 and are brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that advances made to other educational institutions, where trustees are common, violate Section 13(1)(c). Consequently, such advances cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 11 and are brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that the particulars of income furnished by the assessee were not inaccurate, and the issue of genuineness of gifts was debatable. Therefore, it was not a fit case for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

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.

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.

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.

The Tribunal held that advances made to other educational institutions, where trustees are common, violate Section 13(1)(c). Consequently, such advances cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 11 and are brought to tax.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked sufficient reasoning regarding the adjustment of inventories for VAT. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and necessary adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's revisionary powers under Section 263 were not warranted, as a similar issue for a prior assessment year had been decided in favor of the assessee. The assessment order was not considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that levying penalty under both limbs of section 271(1)(c) without proper show cause notice and specific finding on each limb is invalid. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the application solely based on the non-production of books of account, as trusts may apply before commencing activities. It also noted the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was therefore an academic exercise.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid because the AO failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was violated. The AO also failed to conclusively determine whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS returns, considering the practical difficulties faced, especially with the introduction of e-TDS filing. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(k) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The adjudication on merits was considered academic.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the assessee is liable for, and a blanket initiation or levy on both limbs is invalid. The penalty orders were consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the assessee is liable for, and a blanket initiation or levy on both limbs is invalid. The penalty orders were consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of corporate cost allocation was arbitrary and unjustified, upholding the assessee's claim. It also found that the provision for warranty expenses was made on a reasonable basis, deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition made solely on the basis of statements recorded behind the assessee's back, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination or confronting the assessee with the evidence, was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not brought any cogent evidence to prove the purchases were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of corporate cost allocation was arbitrary and unjustified, upholding the assessee's claim. It also found that the provision for warranty expenses was made on a reasonable basis, deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains arising on the sale of depreciable assets, even though deemed so under Section 50, are eligible for set off against brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The claim for set off of these losses was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of corporate cost allocation was arbitrary and unjustified, upholding the assessee's claim. It also found that the provision for warranty expenses was made on a reasonable basis, deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of corporate cost allocation was arbitrary and unjustified, upholding the assessee's claim. It also found that the provision for warranty expenses was made on a reasonable basis, deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the assessee is liable for, and a blanket initiation or levy on both limbs is invalid. The penalty orders were consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the assessee is liable for, and a blanket initiation or levy on both limbs is invalid. The penalty orders were consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the assessee is liable for, and a blanket initiation or levy on both limbs is invalid. The penalty orders were consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) the assessee is liable for, and a blanket initiation or levy on both limbs is invalid. The penalty orders were consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding unexplained investment in Fixed Deposits (FDs) required further examination of cash flow statements to determine the source of funds. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes to enable the AO to re-examine the matter.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were legally unsustainable due to ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the discrepancy between the grounds for initiation and levy. The assessee was not provided with clear notice of the charges to defend.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were legally unsustainable due to ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the discrepancy between the grounds for initiation and levy. The assessee was not provided with clear notice of the charges to defend.

The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses, erection and fabrication expenses, and labour charges for installation are to be capitalized and included in the cost of the asset. Similarly, packaging and printing machinery are essential for bringing the final product to a marketable condition and thus eligible for additional depreciation.

The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses, erection and fabrication expenses, and labour charges for installation are to be capitalized and included in the cost of the asset. Similarly, packaging and printing machinery are essential for bringing the final product to a marketable condition and thus eligible for additional depreciation.

The Tribunal held that 'on-money' received on the sale of flats, being part of the sale consideration, should be taxed in the year the sale of the respective flat is recorded, aligning with the project completion method of accounting.

The Tribunal held that 'on-money' received on the sale of flats, being part of the sale consideration, should be taxed in the year the sale of the respective flat is recorded, following the project completion method of accounting. This decision was affirmed by the High Court.