ITAT Pune Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal found that while the transactions involved penny stocks and had complete documentation, the CIT(A) needed to examine the facts more closely. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the nature of transactions and the submissions made by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted business of aggregation, not investment. It relied on a similar case where the Revenue accepted land transactions as business income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. The circular raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs, which was met in this case.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'E-Infochips Ltd.' from the comparables due to diversified activities and lack of segmental data. It also directed the inclusion of 'Maveric Systems Ltd.' as it met the export turnover filter. Working capital adjustment was allowed, while risk adjustment was denied.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per a CBDT circular, without going into the merits of the case.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) order could not be upheld as merits were not adjudicated. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a revised return filed after a valid original return declaring positive income is a valid return. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to carry forward the losses declared in the revised return.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's right to appeal and the seriousness of pursuing it. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has a right to appeal and should be granted an opportunity of being heard. The issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove any arrangement between the assessee's units leading to extraordinary profits. It also found that no goods or services were transferred between the units, making the invocation of specific sections misplaced. Expenses were re-allocated between the units.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'E-Infochips Ltd.' from the comparables due to diversified activities and lack of segmental data. It also directed the inclusion of 'Maveric Systems Ltd.' as it met the export turnover filter. Working capital adjustment was allowed, while risk adjustment was denied.

The Tribunal held that MSEB recoveries are primarily reimbursement and not eligible for deduction. However, excess recoveries over expenditure need to be examined by the AO. The Tribunal also ruled that car parking receipts are eligible for deduction, but pro-rata deduction is to be allowed for merged flats exceeding the size limit.

The Tribunal held that the road acquisition area, when deducted from the total plot area, still left a sufficient area for the housing project to qualify for the deduction. This decision was based on previous judgments in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following the same reasoning, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that MSEB recoveries are primarily reimbursement and not eligible for deduction. However, excess recoveries over expenditure need to be examined by the AO. The Tribunal also ruled that car parking receipts are eligible for deduction, but pro-rata deduction is to be allowed for merged flats exceeding the size limit.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue did not object. The tribunal granted the prayer of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient satisfaction to invoke Section 14A. However, it found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, thus no disallowance was warranted for interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The disallowance for administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the prior year expenses were allowable on a payment basis under Section 43B. It also confirmed the deletion of the addition for outstanding liabilities as there was no cessation of liability in the year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The ITAT found merit in the assessee's plea that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that if the trail of goods is established, the addition should be restricted to 10% over the declared GP rate. This was based on a previous Tribunal order and the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as time-barred. Evidence showed the demand notice was served later than initially reported, making the appeal filed within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding foreign exchange loss and remanded it to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal against the alternate deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) was dismissed as academic, as the primary claim under Section 35(2AB) was being considered.

The Tribunal held that the addition by way of estimation should be made at the rate of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, over and above the net profit shown by the assessee. This decision followed the precedent set in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the land transferred was indeed agricultural land, based on its classification in revenue records, cultivation of crops, and land revenue payment. However, it partially disallowed the claim for agricultural income due to lack of evidence for the full amount.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not conducted a detailed factual verification of the evidences submitted by the assessees. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of ₹15,97,500/- as the assessee failed to prove the theory of peak credit and provide supporting evidence for cash withdrawals or loans. The appeal was heard ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee, a credit cooperative society engaged in banking-like activities, from its investments is attributable to its business and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ratio of the Totagars case was distinguished as it involved surplus funds from marketing activities, not operational funds.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding the investment. However, the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Rule 6DD(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, provides an exception for payments made for the purchase of livestock in cash, and therefore, Section 40A(3) is not applicable. The Tribunal found no evidence that the payments made through bearer cheques were returned to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the prior year expenses were allowable on a payment basis under Section 43B. It also confirmed the deletion of the addition for outstanding liabilities as there was no cessation of liability in the year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA is identical in nature to Section 50C and that the principles of case laws related to Section 50C, particularly regarding the 10% difference rule, are applicable. Since the difference between the sale consideration and the fair market value was less than 10%, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to defend their case and that the statement of the buyer regarding 'on-money' payment was not confronted to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not conducted a detailed factual verification of the evidences submitted by the assessees. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessee has established the trail of goods purchased to final consumption, the entire bogus purchases cannot be added. However, an estimation of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases should be added over and above the net profit shown by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessee has established the trail of goods purchased to final consumption, the entire bogus purchases cannot be added. However, an estimation of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases should be added over and above the net profit shown by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to ensure compliance with natural justice.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that extending the scope of scrutiny beyond CASS-selected issues without proper approval from superior authorities is not permissible. Therefore, additions made on non-CASS issues are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal granted the assessees an opportunity to be heard, considering their right to appeal and payment of appeal fees. All issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition under Section 40A(2)(a), following its previous year's order. It also directed to apply a GP rate of 0.63% for the assessee's appeal, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54EC by the Finance Act, 2014, which introduced a new proviso, was prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption on the entire investment made within the prescribed time.