ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the Supreme Court's directions. The contribution to Vasantdada Sugar Institute and harvesting/transportation expenses were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies where Section 44 applies, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for education cess as an allowable expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the additional evidence submitted by the assessee relevant and decided to admit it. The appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue after considering this new evidence.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue of TDS default after considering the new evidence. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant relief where conditions for not being treated as an assessee in default were met.

For AY 2005-06, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's explanation for certain deposits. For AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

For AY 2005-06, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's explanation for certain deposits. For AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that grounds related to the tax holiday claim (Sections 10AA and 80IA) and the reconciliation of receipts were not fully adjudicated and remanded them to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, issues regarding foreign tax credit and withholding tax credit were also remanded for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude the one-time price rebate from the current year's operating profit calculation, citing precedent. It also affirmed the DRP's exclusion of Eclerx Services Ltd. as a comparable due to functional dissimilarity.

The Tribunal, following its own precedents, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for re-computation of transfer pricing adjustments. The adjustment is to be made with respect to international transactions only, not the entire sales of the segment.

The Tribunal corrected paragraph 10 of its earlier order. The corrected paragraph remits an issue regarding the applicability of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) back to the Assessing Officer for examination.

The Tribunal, following its own precedents, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for re-computation of transfer pricing adjustments. The adjustment is to be made with respect to international transactions only, not the entire sales of the segment.

The Tribunal corrected paragraph 10 of its earlier order. The corrected paragraph remits an issue regarding the applicability of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) back to the Assessing Officer for examination.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which raised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal decided to delete the disallowance made by the AO and the enhancement made by the CIT(A). This decision followed the view taken in a similar, previously argued case.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was based on the assessee's liability to deduct tax at source. Since a prior Tribunal order had already held that the assessee was not liable for TDS on these payments, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) could not stand.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed/withdrawn due to contravention of the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition itself was deleted in earlier appeals, there was no justification for imposing a penalty. Furthermore, in the absence of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that expenses for increasing authorized share capital are part of amalgamation proceedings and are allowable. For software development expenses, the matter was remanded for detailed verification.

The Tribunal held that expenses for increasing authorized share capital are part of amalgamation proceedings and are allowable. For software development expenses, the matter was remanded for detailed verification.

The Tribunal held that the transporters were not agents of the assessee, thus Rule 6DD(k) was not applicable, upholding the disallowance under Section 40A(3). However, it ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A was permissible as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the AO must be clear about the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) being invoked and provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the penalty invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO must be clear about the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) being invoked and provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the penalty invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO must be clear about the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) being invoked and provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the penalty invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO must be clear about the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) being invoked and provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the penalty invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO must be clear about the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) being invoked and provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the penalty invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO must be clear about the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) being invoked and provide a proper show cause notice to the assessee. Failure to do so renders the penalty invalid.