ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2019

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal without deciding on merits, even in ex-parte cases. While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the tribunal granted a final opportunity to appear before the lower authorities, subject to a cost.

The ITAT allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal noted that there was no objection from the revenue's side.

The Tribunal held that the AO's mention of a wrong section does not invalidate his jurisdiction if the action is otherwise in accordance with law, particularly Section 68. The CIT(A) erred by not examining the merits of the genuineness of the share application money.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when income disclosed during a survey is subsequently declared in the return of income. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty was initiated for concealment but levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars, which is inconsistent.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of accrued interest on NPAs. It relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Court judgments concerning co-operative banks.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the AO to determine the deductible expenditure and profit distribution component of the excess sugarcane price, considering Section 40A(2) for non-members.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was wrongly levied as the issue was furnishing of inaccurate particulars, not concealment of income. Regarding the deduction, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim based on previous decisions in its own case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was wrongly levied as the issue was furnishing of inaccurate particulars, not concealment of income. Regarding the deduction, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim based on previous decisions in its own case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was wrongly levied as the issue was furnishing of inaccurate particulars, not concealment of income. Regarding the deduction, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim based on previous decisions in its own case.

The Tribunal upheld the authorities below in estimating agricultural income at Rs. 4,65,250/- based on cultivable land and treating the remaining Rs. 70,34,750/- as income from other sources due to lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is to determine the profit component in the excess price paid to members and apply Section 40A(2) for non-members.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the AO to determine the profit component in the excess sugarcane price paid, distinguishing between payments to members and non-members.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of compounding charges, citing Section 37(1) Explanation and High Court precedents. It also upheld the disallowance of other PMC payments and furniture expenses due to the assessee's failure to correlate them with the project completed in the relevant year.

The Tribunal held that Excel Infoways Ltd. (Seg.) should be excluded as a comparable due to its fluctuating margins and being in the process of closing down its ITES segment. Consequently, the assessee's margins were found to be higher than the adjusted comparable mean.

The Tribunal held that the payments were reimbursement of expenses and not royalty, therefore no tax deduction at source was required. The disallowance made by the revenue authorities was reversed.

The Tribunal held that for benchmarking international transactions, segmental information should be applied rather than entity-level data, especially when available and audited. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment for design engineering services was to be re-computed based on segmental profitability.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's revisionary powers under Section 263 were not correctly exercised. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on specific grounds, and the revisionary jurisdiction was sought to be exercised on issues that did not form the subject of the original reopening.

The Tribunal held that the CUP method was not appropriate for determining the arm's length price in this case, and the TNMM method should be applied. It also ruled that tooling is part of 'Plant & Machinery' and entitled to additional depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment on management service fees was not justified as the services were actually rendered by group entities. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was also found to be not applicable as TDS was paid in a subsequent year and the original disallowance order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of shrink-wrapped software is not royalty under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA, especially when the definition of royalty in the DTAA has not been amended. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for one limb of section 271(1)(c) but levied penalty for both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of proper satisfaction and show cause notice rendered the penalty levy invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's revisionary powers under Section 263 were not correctly exercised. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on specific grounds, and the revisionary jurisdiction was sought to be exercised on issues that did not form the subject of the original reopening.

The Tribunal held that no addition on account of deemed rent for unsold units held as stock-in-trade can be made, following precedents. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was also addressed, with the tribunal referencing previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for one limb of section 271(1)(c) but levied penalty for both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of proper satisfaction and show cause notice rendered the penalty levy invalid.

The Tribunal held that the nature of services provided to Walter Tools India Pvt. Ltd. and Dormer Tools India Pvt. Ltd. needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer, as they were claimed to be identical to services provided to Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., which were not taxed. If the services are identical, they should not be taxed as royalty/FTS or business income in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment on management service fees was not justified as the services were actually rendered by group entities. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was also found to be not applicable as TDS was paid in a subsequent year and the original disallowance order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the purchases. The appeal was decided ex parte due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that for benchmarking international transactions, segmental information should be applied rather than entity-level data, especially when available and audited. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment for design engineering services was to be re-computed based on segmental profitability.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the re-opening of assessment by passing a speaking order renders the reassessment order bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting as an intermediary, purchasing goods for small vendors and charging a commission. The bank deposits represented the flow of funds for these transactions, not the assessee's own sales.

The Tribunal held that the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A) are a continuation of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the benefit of Section 12AA registration granted during the pendency of the appeal should be extended to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide. It held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) while initiating and levying the penalty, making it legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not present any material to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings. In the absence of contrary evidence, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower appellate authority's order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide. It held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) while initiating and levying the penalty, making it legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be bona fide. It held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) while initiating and levying the penalty, making it legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of excessive cane price paid back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on Supreme Court guidelines. Other grounds of appeal were either dismissed, allowed, or dismissed as not pressed, depending on the specific facts and prior rulings.