ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal noted that the assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA subsequent to the assessment orders. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the assessments considering the granted registration.

The Tribunal held that FBT paid in Australia is not covered by Section 40(a)(ic) of the Act and thus upheld the DRP's finding. Regarding TDS, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax on payments for software licenses and data link charges, thus no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. However, it noted that the applicability of Section 68/69 might be questionable if books of account are not maintained. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions in similar cases, held that a 10% estimation on the alleged hawala purchases should be added to the assessee's income, over and above the Gross Profit shown. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside to this extent.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA subsequent to the assessment orders. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the assessments considering the granted registration.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of peak credit by the revenue authorities was not properly carried out. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a proper calculation of the peak credit, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter back for adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with relevant documents.

The tribunal held that disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on transporter payments was justified due to lack of evidence. However, Provident Fund payments made before the due date of filing the return were allowed as deduction, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Interest charges were upheld as mandatory.

The Tribunal held that FBT paid in Australia is not covered by Section 40(a)(ic) of the Act and thus upheld the DRP's finding. Regarding TDS, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax on payments for software licenses and data link charges, thus no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted.

The Tribunal held that while purchases from hawala dealers cannot be disallowed entirely if goods were received and movement/consumption details are available, an estimation of 10% of the alleged hawala purchases should be added over and above the normal GP rate.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed after the initiation of search was invalid as pending assessments abate upon search. It also followed a previous decision in the assessee's group case, allowing the appeal.

The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing, with a caution that non-cooperation may lead to adverse inference.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed after the initiation of search proceedings was invalid. Following a co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals.

The CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidence as it was not submitted before the AO and no proper request was made under Rule 46A. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidence as it was not submitted before the AO and no proper request was made under Rule 46A. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of invoking Section 115JB, stating that the provision overrides other sections and the assessee failed to demonstrate any error in book profit computation. The pendency of the writ petition did not grant immunity from tax liability.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of invoking Section 115JB, stating that the provision overrides other sections and the assessee failed to demonstrate any error in book profit computation. The pendency of the writ petition did not grant immunity from tax liability.

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that 'Khodki charges' are deductible as they were paid to compensate farmers for losses incurred during harvesting, a practice upheld by the Bombay High Court. It also confirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).