ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal held that the land records classifying the land as agricultural and subject to land revenue raise a presumption that it is agricultural land. The Revenue failed to provide material to rebut this presumption.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside, rendering the penalty levied on the additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside, rendering the penalty levied on the additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the issue needed to be revisited by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after verifying the assessee's claim and the factual aspects of the TDS amount reflected in Form 26AS.

The Tribunal held that payments for web hosting charges to AWS are not 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) and thus, no tax deduction at source was required. Following its own previous orders, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to meet the legal requirement of clearly specifying the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, leading to ambiguity in his satisfaction. Therefore, the penalty order was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) in the status of HUF, when the initial notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the individual, is invalid and bad in law. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied, leading to ambiguity. Relying on binding judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot extend the scope of limited scrutiny to other issues without obtaining prior approval from the Commissioner. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO was considered bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not appreciated the facts correctly, noting contradictory statements regarding the assessee's business and the submission of written arguments. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest on NPAs should not be taxed as income, following jurisdictional ITAT decisions and the Bombay High Court's ruling. The RBI guidelines and accounting practices do not override the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 50% of the interest on loans. This was because the assessee failed to provide any details regarding the utilization of borrowed funds, purchase of land, construction of godown, or the amount spent on construction before any of the authorities.

The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as not pressed. Considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's concession, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, finding that the assessee members were uneducated agriculturists, the violation was technical, and there was no finding that the transactions were not bonafide or intended to evade taxes. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanation and evidence insufficient. However, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to a vague charge.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanation and evidence insufficient. However, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to a vague charge.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20.00 lakh should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has overall expenditure exceeding income, interest earned on FDRs should be adjusted against such expenditure and is not separately assessable. The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Maruti Employees Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd. was applied.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanation and evidence insufficient. However, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to a vague charge.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanation and evidence insufficient. However, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to a vague charge.

The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as not pressed. Considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's concession, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the non-receipt of Form No. 3CM for certain periods was a procedural lapse and not fatal to the deduction claim, as the R&D facility's recognition was maintained. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanation and evidence insufficient. However, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to a vague charge.

The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as not pressed. Considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's concession, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as not pressed. Considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's concession, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition on account of deemed dividend had already been made in the case of Zetex. The Assessing Officer lacked the present reason to believe that income had escaped assessment in the assessee's hands when initiating reassessment.

The Tribunal held that payments for software use were not taxable as royalty, thus the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271C was not leviable.

The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as not pressed. Considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's concession, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as not pressed. Considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's concession, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as not pressed. Considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's concession, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the business was only temporarily shut down due to the relocation and trial production at the new plant. Since the expenses were revenue in nature and the business eventually restarted, they were allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice and order were vague as they did not clearly specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which the penalty was levied. This lack of specificity denied the assessee an adequate opportunity to defend themselves.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in following previous decisions of the Tribunal and allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Revenue failed to provide any material to distinguish the current case or to show that the earlier decisions were overruled.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in following previous decisions of the Tribunal and allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10). The Revenue failed to provide any material to distinguish the current case or to show that the earlier decisions were overruled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the revised return was filed before the assessment was completed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition to the extent of 10% of the bogus purchases, following a coordinate bench decision. The assessee's ground of appeal was therefore partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in judgment over the business module of the assessee and its intention to avail services. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal allowed the entire expenditure booked under management fees as a deduction.

For A.Y. 2012-13, the disallowance of commission was upheld due to lack of TDS and recipients not having income above taxable limits. For A.Y. 2014-15, the disallowance of interest was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication based on Delhi High Court ruling, while the disallowance of depreciation was partly upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in initiating reassessment proceedings as the reason for reopening (bogus purchases) was not the basis for the final addition (URD purchases). The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

For A.Y. 2012-13, the disallowance of commission was upheld due to lack of TDS and recipients not having income above taxable limits. For A.Y. 2014-15, the disallowance of interest was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication based on Delhi High Court ruling, while the disallowance of depreciation was partly upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in initiating reassessment proceedings as the reason for reopening (bogus purchases) was not the basis for the final addition (URD purchases). The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in initiating reassessment proceedings as the reason for reopening (bogus purchases) was not the basis for the final addition (URD purchases). The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that payments for professional services rendered by trustees, linked to patient fees, and utilization charges for assets owned by trustees but used by the trust, are allowable. These payments were not considered to be for the direct or indirect benefit of the trustees.

The Tribunal held that payments for professional services rendered by trustees, linked to patient fees, and utilization charges for assets owned by trustees but used by the trust, are not violations of Section 13(1)(c) if not excessive or for undue benefit. Therefore, these payments are allowable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the letter from the Principal CIT accepting the CIT(A)'s decision and stating that further appeal would be infructuous litigation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was tangible material and a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. However, regarding the addition on merits, the Tribunal found that the AO did not provide details of the alleged fictitious losses, preventing the assessee from proving their genuineness.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any evidence found during the search for the assessment year 2012-13, no addition is warranted by estimating toll receipts outside the books of account. This decision was based on the Tribunal's own previous orders concerning the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, is declaratory and curative, applying retrospectively from April 1, 2005, as per High Court decisions. Consequently, the issue of disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification in light of this proviso.

The Tribunal held that the addition should be sustained at 10% of the hawala purchases plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate shown by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s restriction to only 10% was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.