ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the lower authorities and decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is permitted to repeat the additions if the assessee fails to cooperate.

The Tribunal found that for want of specific facts regarding the nature of interest received (whether under Section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act), the issue required fresh adjudication by the AO. The Tribunal noted conflicting Supreme Court judgments on the taxability of such interest.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted due to imperfections in documentation, the AO's flat 5% rate was arbitrary. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to Rs. 1,00,000/- on an estimation basis, considering the assessee's request to restrict it to a nominal amount.

The Tribunal found that for want of specific facts regarding the nature of interest received (whether under Section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act), the issue required fresh adjudication by the AO. The Tribunal noted conflicting Supreme Court judgments on the taxability of such interest.

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.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) for initiating and levying the penalty. This technical deficiency rendered the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record valid satisfaction and specify the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) during the initiation and levy of penalty, rendering the penalty order unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal found that for want of specific facts regarding the nature of interest received (whether under Section 28 or 34 of the Land Acquisition Act), the issue required fresh adjudication by the AO. The Tribunal noted conflicting Supreme Court judgments on the taxability of such interest.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was bad in law because the AO had failed to record the mandatory satisfaction note before issuing it. Consequently, the additions made under Section 153C were null and void.