ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2019

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 jurisdictional High Court. It also affirmed that interest and dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society are fully 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 found the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 10% of turnover to be on the higher side. Considering the assessee's past profit rates, the Tribunal directed that the addition on account of profits be restricted to 5% of the turnover.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 51 lakh for labour expenses, finding it was recorded in the assessee's seized documents and the payment as a bribe was not disputed. The addition of Rs. 60.74 lakh for purchases was also sustained due to the assessee's admission of offering it as additional income.

The Tribunal held that while additions for unrecorded expenses and excess stock were sustained based on diary entries and stock inventory signed by the assessee, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justifiable due to plausible alternative explanations and the nature of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under section 263 were not sustainable as the AO had conducted enquiries and taken a possible view. Even if the enquiry was inadequate, section 263 could not be invoked.

The Tribunal held that since the land sale transaction was conducted by the partnership firm and the consideration was received and offered to tax by the firm, the amount could not be taxed again in the hands of the individual partner. Assessment must be done in the correct hands.

The Tribunal held that while additions for unrecorded expenses and excess stock were sustained based on diary entries and stock inventory signed by the assessee, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justifiable due to plausible alternative explanations and the nature of the additions.

The Tribunal held that since the land sale transaction was conducted by the partnership firm and the consideration was received and offered to tax by the firm, the amount could not be taxed again in the hands of the individual partner. Assessment must be done in the correct hands.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from hawala parties, the total amount could not be added. Instead, an addition of 10% of the alleged hawala purchases plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate should be made.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from hawala parties, the total amount could not be added. Instead, an addition of 10% of the alleged hawala purchases plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate should be made.

The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, no disallowance is warranted.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest is called for as the assessee's interest-free funds exceeded its investments. However, the disallowance of other expenses under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid because the required approval from the Joint CIT was obtained after the notice was issued. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 cannot stand.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue had not placed any material to demonstrate that the claim of loss was excessive or bogus. The lodging of an FIR for burglary prima facie shows that the incident occurred.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were from hawala parties, the total amount could not be added. Instead, an addition of 10% of the alleged hawala purchases plus the normal Gross Profit (GP) rate should be made.

The Tribunal held that while bogus purchases were made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee filed a revised return immediately after the survey. The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged hawala purchases over the Gross Profit.

The Tribunal held that for the revisionary power under Section 263 to be exercised, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since the revised assessment resulted in a lower tax liability for the assessee, it was not prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the restriction of deduction under Sections 10A/10AA was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, implying the assessee's claim was valid. For the Form 26AS reconciliation issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the grounds raised.

The Tribunal held that while bogus purchases were made, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee filed a revised return immediately after the survey. The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged hawala purchases over the Gross Profit.

The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of KALS Information Systems Ltd. and Agrima Consultants Limited from the list of comparables, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions. Grounds related to general nature, not pressed, and consequential were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the restriction of deduction under Sections 10A/10AA was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, implying the assessee's claim was valid. For the Form 26AS reconciliation issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in wholesale, the comparison was made with a retailer. Considering the wholesale nature of the business and consistent profit margins declared by the assessee, the Tribunal restricted the gross profit rate to 6%.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in wholesale, the comparison was made with a retailer. Considering the wholesale nature of the business and consistent profit margins declared by the assessee, the Tribunal restricted the gross profit rate to 6%.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in wholesale, the comparison was made with a retailer. Considering the wholesale nature of the business and consistent profit margins declared by the assessee, the Tribunal restricted the gross profit rate to 6%.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in wholesale, the comparison was made with a retailer. Considering the wholesale nature of the business and consistent profit margins declared by the assessee, the Tribunal restricted the gross profit rate to 6%.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in wholesale, the comparison was made with a retailer. Considering the wholesale nature of the business and consistent profit margins declared by the assessee, the Tribunal restricted the gross profit rate to 6%.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in wholesale, the comparison was made with a retailer. Considering the wholesale nature of the business and consistent profit margins declared by the assessee, the Tribunal restricted the gross profit rate to 6%.

The Tribunal held that commission income earned from MSEB is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, following previous decisions of the Pune Bench. Therefore, the assessee's claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition should be made by way of estimation at the rate of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, over and above the net profit shown by the assessee. This decision followed a previous ruling on similar issues of bogus purchases.

The Tribunal found that the matter was not referred to the DVO and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide proper documentation and the applicability of Section 145(3). Citing a precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate profits at 5% of purchases instead of 8% of turnover.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the additional evidence. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, all issues raised in the appeal were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the revenue had not demonstrated successful service of notice during remand proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee on deposits with nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following previous decisions of the Pune Bench.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs received from the mother, finding her creditworthiness unsubstantiated. However, it allowed the appeal for the Rs. 2.5 lakhs received from the uncle, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning for disallowing it unsustainable.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence showing the cash flow from the brother's loan account to his savings account and subsequent cash withdrawal. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence in the interest of justice and remanded the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and examine the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to attend the CIT(A) hearing was not proper, and the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the absence of specific data regarding benefits to weaker sections is not a sufficient reason to reject the registration application. The CIT did not find any mala fide intent in the assessee's objects or activities.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision on identical facts for AY 2010-11, restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to cooperate with the AO and establish the trail of goods.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a clear warranty policy and a method for quantifying expenses based on past experience and contractual obligations. The provision was found to be calculated scientifically and linked to actual warranty claims.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of disallowance of excess depreciation claim to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2006-07, several grounds were allowed in favor of the assessee, relying on previous decisions for AY 2005-06.