ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the issue of tangible material for reopening the assessment, as directed in a previous round of proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from alleged hawala dealers, the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the trail of goods and its consumption. Therefore, the entire purchases could not be disallowed, but a 10% estimation on the alleged bogus purchases should be added to the income.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing reasons such as misplaced vouchers and personal difficulties. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing reasons such as misplaced vouchers and personal difficulties. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the irrecoverable trade advance written off as a business loss is an allowable expenditure. The advance was given in the ordinary course of business for a component akin to raw material.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions were deleted by it in the cases of other society members. Since the specific orders were not produced, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the manner of setting off notional losses against profits for calculating Section 80IA deduction is a settled issue, and the AO's approach of using notional losses to reduce eligible profits is not permissible. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction while initiating and levying the penalty, specifically failing to specify the correct limb under Section 271(1)(d). The penalty order was quashed on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 10A can be claimed before setting off brought forward losses, as the deduction is for the eligible undertaking itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Yokogawa India Ltd. was cited as covering this issue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was crucial and required a thorough probe by the AO. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed that the addition should be restricted to 10% over and above the GP rate declared by the assessee, rejecting the assessee's plea to restrict it to 12.50% of total purchases.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to appear and cooperate with the appellate proceedings.

The ITAT had previously quashed the CIT's order under Section 263. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the consequential assessment order and the additions made therein could not sustain.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the stamp duty value should be considered as of the date of the development agreement (2002) due to the provisos to Section 50C(1). It also allowed a deduction for the value of a flat allotted to a third party to settle an encumbrance.

The Tribunal, following a precedent from a previous assessment year with similar facts and grounds, dismissed the Revenue's appeal on merits and the assessee's appeal as academic. The core issue revolved around the carry forward of deficits and the application of income for exemption purposes.

The Tribunal held that if the payee has included the interest income in its return and paid taxes thereon, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted. However, this contention required verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act, even considering the extension for TPO reference. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed null and void.

The ITAT found merit in the assessee's plea that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for a decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the reassessment order was bad-in-law because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections before completing the assessment. This decision was based on previous Tribunal rulings on identical facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice and natural justice. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance accordingly.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding his medical condition causing the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the 90-day delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of the exempt income, following the Delhi High Court's ruling in DCIT Vs. Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from nationalized banks. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order.

The Tribunal directed that the addition should be restricted to 10% over and above the GP rate declared by the assessee, rejecting the assessee's plea to restrict it to 12.50% of total purchases.

The ITAT had previously quashed the CIT's order under Section 263. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the consequential assessment order and the additions made therein could not sustain.

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal, following a precedent from a previous assessment year with similar facts and grounds, dismissed the Revenue's appeal on merits and the assessee's appeal as academic. The core issue revolved around the carry forward of deficits and the application of income for exemption purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to appear and cooperate with the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was to be applied, but Kirloskar Toyoda could not be used as a comparable. The TPO was directed to compare the commission rate charged by LMW with that of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was to be applied, but Kirloskar Toyoda could not be used as a comparable. The TPO was directed to compare the commission rate charged by LMW with that of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice and natural justice. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that with the inclusion of the additional comparable, the assessee's margin fell within the +/-5% arm's length margin. Therefore, the issues raised by the department were allowed.

The Tribunal held that a provision of Rs. 20 Lakhs made for standard assets, even if not separately claimed as deduction, qualifies for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) as it is a provision related to the bank's debts. The disallowance was set aside to that extent.

The assessee's counsel filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal, having no objection from the revenue, allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of estimated gross profit was not based on concrete evidence found during the search. Therefore, levying penalty under section 158BFA(2) on such an estimated addition was not justified.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, directed that 10% of the bogus purchases over and above the Gross Profit (GP) percentage shown by the assessee should be added.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that web-based training did not constitute Fees for Technical Services as no technical knowledge was imparted. For expat employee salaries, it followed the Bombay High Court ruling that if tax was already deducted on salary payments in India, there was no default for non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no infirmity as it was based on the assessee's own case decided in its favor by a co-ordinate bench. The addition of accrued interest on NPA was directed to be cancelled.

The Tribunal held that web-based training did not constitute Fees for Technical Services as no technical knowledge was imparted. For expat employee salaries, it followed the Bombay High Court ruling that if tax was already deducted on salary payments in India, there was no default for non-deduction of TDS on reimbursement.