ITAT Pune Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove possession of the studio flat for claiming depreciation. However, it allowed the deletion of an addition made under Section 68 by accepting the genuineness of the transaction. The Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on another property was dismissed as it had accepted the same in prior years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove possession of the studio flat during the relevant period, thus disallowing depreciation. However, it allowed the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 for an amount received from a third party, as the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Interest under Section 234B and 234C was upheld as consequential.

The Tribunal, following its own precedents for earlier assessment years, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of commission payments to 10% of the total amount.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its earlier decisions for assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11. The Assessing Officer was directed to apply the ratio laid down by the Tribunal and verify the margins of external comparables.

The tribunal held that additions made without granting the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. This principle was based on Supreme Court and previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to Rs. 2 lakhs and depreciation disallowance was restricted to 5%. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were not controverted.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative for the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that wharfage charges paid to Maharashtra Maritime Board were not in the nature of rent and therefore, TDS was not required. The reimbursement of salary and foreign travel expenses for deputed employees were also allowed as legitimate business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that legitimate tax planning, even if it reduces tax liability, is permissible. Transactions involving the sale of shares, especially listed ones, at market prices after bonus issues, were considered genuine and not a colorable device.

The Tribunal held that the three parcels of land were not capital assets as defined under Section 2(14) and thus the income from their sale was not taxable as business income. The Tribunal restored the issue of the correct exemption amount for the fourth parcel to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and did not provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied was without merit.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is revenue in nature and not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. This decision was based on a previous ruling by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years.

The tribunal held that the penalty on the addition of Rs. 58,72,000/- is unsustainable as this addition was deleted by a coordinate bench. However, the penalty on the undisclosed interest income of Rs. 77,515/- is upheld as the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to include 'Informed Technologies Ltd.' as a comparable, noting its consistent inclusion in previous years and by the TPO. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and sketchy. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the file to the CIT(A) for passing a speaking and detailed order.

The Tribunal restored the issue of additional cane price to the AO for fresh determination as per Supreme Court guidelines, distinguishing between deductible expenditure and appropriation of profit. The harvesting and transportation expenses were also restored to the AO for verification and allowance as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that HUFs were not eligible for exemption under Section 54B for the assessment year 2009-10. Regarding Section 54F, the Tribunal found that the assessee had purchased a residential house within the stipulated period and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that legitimate tax planning, even if it reduces tax liability, is permissible. Transactions involving the sale of shares, especially listed ones, at market prices after bonus issues, were considered genuine and not a colorable device.

The Tribunal held that legitimate tax planning, even if it reduces tax liability, is permissible. Transactions involving the sale of shares, especially listed ones, at market prices after bonus issues, were considered genuine and not a colorable device.

The Tribunal held that legitimate tax planning, even if it reduces tax liability, is permissible. Transactions involving the sale of shares, especially listed ones, at market prices after bonus issues, were considered genuine and not a colorable device.

The Tribunal held that wharfage charges paid to Maharashtra Maritime Board were not in the nature of rent and therefore, TDS was not required. The reimbursement of salary and foreign travel expenses for deputed employees were also allowed as legitimate business expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to include 'Informed Technologies Ltd.' as a comparable, noting its consistent inclusion in previous years and by the TPO. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and did not provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied was without merit.

The Tribunal held that the date of transfer for the purpose of Section 50C should be the date of the registered sale deed, not the date of the distribution deed amongst co-owners. The AO's action of adopting a higher deemed sale consideration based on the distribution deed was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the profit on the sale of land at Hinjewadi and Mann should be treated as Long Term Capital Gains, not business income. The AO was directed to verify the distance of the land from municipal limits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the deduction. The assessee had provided evidence, including loan application and sanction letters, indicating the loan was for house construction.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the source of funds to be genuine, especially considering the brother is an NRI and the majority of the funds were accepted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Rule 6(7A) requiring Form 3CL for quantification of expenditure was effective from July 1, 2016, and thus not applicable to the assessment year under appeal. The assessee had valid registration and approval for its R&D facility.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed as its filing contravened the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the excessive sugarcane price paid to members, to the extent it represents profit distribution, is not deductible. For non-members, the AO must re-examine under Section 40A(2). The issue of concessional sugar sales was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided based on the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of sugar given at concessional rates was remitted to the AO based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the excessive sugarcane price paid to members may be partly appropriation of profit and partly deductible expenditure, requiring fresh examination by the AO. For sugar given at concessional rates, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the excessive sugarcane price paid to members might be partly appropriation of profits and partly deductible expenditure, requiring fresh examination by the AO. For sugar given at concessional rates, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the issue of sugar given at concessional rates was remitted to the AO based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excessive sugarcane price paid is to be decided in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of concessional sugar sales was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions.

The Tribunal held that a sale deed between a proprietorship concern and its proprietor is illegal and inconsequential. The AO failed to examine this transaction, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that companies with significantly higher turnovers than the assessee cannot be considered comparable in transfer pricing analysis. Consequently, the exclusion of certain high-turnover companies by the CIT(A) was upheld.