ITAT Pune Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the depreciation disallowance solely based on the agreement date. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO to verify if the products manufactured using the technical know-how were sold during the year, which would then allow depreciation on the ALP.

The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147, finding no merit in the grounds related to non-service of notices. Regarding the addition for bogus purchases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply a Gross Profit rate of 10% over the declared GP.

The Tribunal held that the property sale was indeed business income, making Section 50C inapplicable, and upheld the deletion of additions related to the peak cash balance and the loan from the wife.

The Tribunal held that if machinery was purchased and used for less than 180 days in a particular year, the balance of the additional depreciation (10% of the cost) should be allowed in the succeeding year. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claim and allow it accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the subsidy as a capital receipt, relying on its own prior ruling in the assessee's case and other precedents. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding delayed employee PF/ESIC contributions, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IB(10) should be considered based on the income of the eligible project alone, not the overall business income which included losses from non-eligible projects. The issue of interest on loan relatable to the eligible project was remanded.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous and did not specify the appropriate limb of Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty order was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in Mumbai was bad-in-law and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the AO lacked the proper jurisdiction to conduct the assessment as the assessee's registered office and consistent assessment history were in Ahmednagar.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the alternate claim for deduction under Section 10A. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for computing the deduction, and the grounds regarding set-off of brought forward losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the alternate claim for deduction under Section 10A. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for computing the deduction, and grounds related to the adjustment of brought forward losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the completed part of the housing project. The non-completion of other buildings does not preclude the claim for the completed portion.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance of Rs. 2 lakhs by the CIT(A) was still on the higher side. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal decided to further restrict the disallowance to Rs. 1,00,000.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal held that Instruction No. 03/2010 pertains to 'marked to market' losses on forex derivatives and not to actual losses on concluded forward contracts. The assessee's claim was a net loss on concluded contracts, consistently followed and not erroneous.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of additions on account of loans u/s 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Other issues like agricultural income, unexplained silver, and unexplained jewellery were decided in favour of the assessee based on previous orders. Unexplained FDR investments were also allowed for statistical purposes with directions.

The tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied credit for tax legitimately collected at source, even if the collector failed to deposit it. Section 205 of the IT Act bars recovery of tax from the assessee if it has already been deducted/collected at source.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if the assessee does not appear. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not agree to the addition before the AO, contrary to the CIT(Appeals)'s finding. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, following a precedent from its own bench, allowed the deduction under Section 80P for interest income earned on FDRs with nationalized banks. The tribunal overturned the impugned order which had denied the deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and noting no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and noting no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that if a settlement application is rejected, the original appeal should revive. The CIT(Appeals) should have decided the appeal on merits after being informed of the rejection of the settlement application.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's report is binding on the AO under Section 50C(3) and that the DVO correctly considered various factors like time lag, location, shape, and size. The Tribunal also stated that Section 50C is a deeming provision and is triggered even with a small difference.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of deemed dividend as confirmed by the CIT(A), acknowledging that the issue was settled by a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The additional ground regarding jurisdiction was rejected as it was raised late and not during assessment proceedings.

The CIT(A) quashed the AO's order, holding that the AO was not justified in adopting the value of the impugned property. The addition made by the AO, based on a valuation report of a Government Authority and not the DVO, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid as there was no incriminating material found during the search to justify reopening a concluded assessment. The denial of carry forward of losses was not supported by any such evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the carry forward of deficits, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Consequently, the issue of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) became academic, and the assessee's appeal on this point was kept alive.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) does not apply to non-gratuitous advances. Since the assessee mortgaged property for the company's loan, the advances received were not deemed dividend.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advance to the sister concern, and therefore, the interest disallowance was not justified. It also allowed the appeal regarding ad-hoc disallowances for various expenses, stating they were unsustainable in law for an audited company.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the carry forward of deficits, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Consequently, the issue of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) became academic, and the assessee's appeal on this point was kept alive.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid as there was no incriminating material found during the search to justify reopening a concluded assessment. The denial of carry forward of losses was not supported by any such evidence.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee under the incentive scheme, in the form of sales tax refund, is a capital receipt and not liable to tax. This decision followed a previous ruling by the Tribunal on similar issues for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the inclusion of 'Asian Business Exhibition & Conferences Ltd.' as a comparable was incorrect. It also remanded the issue of warranty provision disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on consistency. Several grounds related to transfer pricing were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances made by the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the expenses. The lack of verifiable details, bills, vouchers, and confirmations led to the confirmation of the ad-hoc additions.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 on issues not covered by the limited scrutiny selected under CASS, unless converted to full scrutiny with proper approval. The order passed by the Commissioner was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to additional evidence. Therefore, the penalty proceedings, which were based on the original addition, were also set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised were covered by its previous decisions. It allowed the deduction for management fees, deleted the addition on account of disallowance of management service fees, and allowed the claim for warranty provision. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the employer's contribution to superannuation and gratuity funds due to retrospective approval.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is allowable only to the extent of the provision actually made in the books of account, following a High Court judgment. Therefore, the restriction by the lower authorities was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings on similar issues. The 'License to collect toll' was considered an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.