ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2018

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.

The Tribunal held that the AO had rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. However, regarding the merits of the disallowance, the Tribunal found it necessary to scrutinize the facts in light of the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the specific limb of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars at the time of initiating penalty proceedings and levying the penalty. This ambiguity rendered the penalty order liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions should be applied, considering the specific nature of services and the availability of comparable data. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-evaluate the arm's length price using the internal TNMM method of man-hourly rates.

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 ITAT decided most grounds in favor of the assessee, particularly regarding the disallowance under Section 14A due to the Assessing Officer's lack of satisfaction. The Tribunal also ruled on the classification of assets and other expenses based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to refer the valuation to a Government Valuer as provided under Section 50C(2) of the Act, despite the assessee's request. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for proper valuation.

The Tribunal held that the AO had rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. However, regarding the merits of the disallowance, the Tribunal found it necessary to scrutinize the facts in light of the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd.

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 upheld the DRP's decision, finding that the services provided did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services because they did not 'make available' technical knowledge or expertise to the recipient. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the payments were Royalty or FTS.

The Tribunal held that the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions should be applied, considering the specific nature of services and the availability of comparable data. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-evaluate the arm's length price using the internal TNMM method of man-hourly rates.

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.

The ITAT decided most grounds in favor of the assessee, particularly regarding the disallowance under Section 14A due to the Assessing Officer's lack of satisfaction. The Tribunal also ruled on the classification of assets and other expenses based on previous rulings.

The ITAT decided most grounds in favor of the assessee, particularly regarding the disallowance under Section 14A due to the Assessing Officer's lack of satisfaction. The Tribunal also ruled on the classification of assets and other expenses based on previous rulings.

The ITAT decided most grounds in favor of the assessee, particularly regarding the disallowance under Section 14A due to the Assessing Officer's lack of satisfaction. The Tribunal also ruled on the classification of assets and other expenses based on previous rulings.

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 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 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 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 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 since the quantum additions were deleted by a coordinate bench on technical grounds, the penalty levied on that basis should also be deleted. Additionally, the penalty notice and levy were found to be infirm.

The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, found it appropriate to remand the entire issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with relevant documents, with liberty to the AO to repeat additions if the assessee failed to represent the case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition of 22.2 kg of silverware was well-reasoned and warranted no interference. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be bad in law due to ambiguity in the charge communicated to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by a coordinate bench on technical grounds, the penalty levied on that basis should also be deleted. Additionally, the penalty notice and levy were found to be infirm.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiating penalty proceedings and levying the penalty. The Tribunal quashed the penalty order on these technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiating penalty proceedings and levying the penalty. The Tribunal quashed the penalty order on these technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition of 22.2 kg of silverware was well-reasoned and warranted no interference. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be bad in law due to ambiguity in the charge communicated to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to refer the case to the TPO, as mandated by Section 92CA and CBDT instructions, rendered the transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's undue haste in passing the order after rejecting objections and the failure to issue a valid notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal also noted that Section 292BB did not save the revenue as the assessee had raised objections regarding the notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was consequently dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additional income is disclosed and offered to tax in the return before the end of the financial year, especially when the survey occurred before the financial year ended and the return was filed incorporating the disclosure. The Tribunal followed previous judgments that emphasized strict construction of penal provisions and the requirement for concealment to be in the filed return.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the addition of the entire purchase amount was unjustified as the Assessing Officer had not rejected the assessee's books of account or sales. The possibility of grey market purchases was considered valid.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 76,00,000/- was not justified as there was no corroborative material to show that loans were actually advanced. Affidavits and statements from the cheque issuers confirmed non-receipt of loans.

The Tribunal held that the land was acquired with the intention to exploit it commercially, thus it was a business asset and Section 50C was not attracted. However, the addition for cash deposits was upheld.

The Tribunal held that invoking Section 40A(2)(b) without providing comparable cases to quantify excessiveness and unreasonableness is unsustainable. The disallowance made by the AO was not supported by proper evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the manner in which the additional income was derived, thereby complying with the conditions for immunity under section 271AAA(2). The penalty was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly analyzed whether individual cash payments exceeded the Rs. 20,000/- limit. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh verification and a speaking order.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the validity of assessment proceedings under Section 153A, as notice under Section 143(2) is not mandatory in such cases. The grounds concerning the nature of land transactions and disallowance under Section 40A(3) were also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the validity of assessment proceedings under Section 153A, as notice under Section 143(2) is not mandatory in such cases. Grounds not pressed and consequential grounds were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from fixed deposits with nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for co-operative credit societies. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular No. 3/2018. The monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal was raised to Rs. 20 Lakhs.

The Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities lacked clarity regarding the application of borrowed funds and the acquisition of office premises. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee as awards were not in the nature of income and were exempt from tax in view of CBDT Circular No. 447 of 1986, as the assessee was a sportsman and not a professional cricketer.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and cannot be levied merely on the basis of estimation or agreement to additions. It also noted that penalty on additions made by the CIT(A) should have been initiated by the CIT(A) himself.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee voluntarily discloses income during scrutiny assessment proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted. The disclosure was considered voluntary as there was no evidence of detection by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the addition beyond what the AO had determined, as the AO's reasoning for allowing relief on Rs. 24,06,500/- was reasonable. The addition of Rs. 29,44,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly considered the aspects raised by the assessee regarding the sources of cash deposits. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was intended to reduce litigation and was not to be construed as acceptance of the Revenue's stand.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was excessive and unreasonable. It directed that the disallowance of purchases should be restricted to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the trade practices and the consumption of goods.