ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2019

NAWANDER COMPANY,LATUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LATUR CIRCLE, LATUR

ITA 1683/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

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.

BHATABHAI SHANKAR PATEL,NANDURBAR vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, DHULE

ITA 1913/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

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.

JEETU BHAGCHANAD KHEMANI,NASHIK vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), NASHIK

ITA 2114/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

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.

RAKESH LALCHNAND SHAH,KARAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA

ITA 2154/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

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.

LALCHAND CHHOTALAL SHAH,KARAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA

ITA 2155/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

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.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), PUNE vs RAHUL NAYAN BHALERAO, PUNE

ITA 2235/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), PUNE vs RAHUL NAYAN BHALERAO, PUNE

ITA 2236/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

VYANKATESH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NASHIK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, MALEGAON

ITA 2494/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

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.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), PUNE vs ABHAY NAYAN BHALERAO, PUNE

ITA 2527/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

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.

M/S. HOTEL DAMINI,KOLHAPUR vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), KUDAL

ITA 1887/PUN/2017[2002-03]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2002-03Partly Allowed

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.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), PUNE vs RAHUL NAYAN BHALERAO, PUNE

ITA 2234/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

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.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), PUNE vs RAHUL NAYAN BHALERAO, PUNE

ITA 2237/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

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.

THOUWFEEQ FISH MEAL & OIL COMPANY PVT.LTD,RATNAGIRI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, RATNAGIRI

ITA 2323/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

RAJU RAMCHANDRA THAKWANI,PUNE vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(5), PUNE

ITA 2353/PUN/2017[2001-02]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2001-02Partly Allowed

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.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), PUNE vs ABHAY NAYAN BHALERAO, PUNE

ITA 2528/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8, PUNE vs M/S. AURANGABAD ELECTRICALS LTD, PUNE

ITA 1789/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

UTTAM BHAGWANRAO PATIL,LATUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), PUNE

ITA 1719/PUN/2017[2003-04]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

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.

SWAPNIL POPATLAL SHAH,KARAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA

ITA 2152/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE vs HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD., PUNE

ITA 568/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to tax holiday claims and transfer pricing adjustments for both assessment years, applying previous decisions. One issue regarding reconciliation of receipts with Form 26AS was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE

ITA 412/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to tax holiday claims and transfer pricing adjustments for both assessment years, applying previous decisions. One issue regarding reconciliation of receipts with Form 26AS was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

TULSI EXTRUSIONS LTD.,JALGAON vs JOINT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA 1434/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not warranted if there is no exempt income. It also upheld additions for bogus purchases and disallowed professional fees as capital expenditure, while sustaining additions under Section 40A(3) as exceptions were not met.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALGAON vs M/S. TULSI EXTRUSIONS LTD.,

ITA 1549/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not warranted if there is no exempt income. It also upheld additions for bogus purchases and disallowed professional fees as capital expenditure, while sustaining additions under Section 40A(3) as exceptions were not met.

TULSI EXTRUSIONS LTD.,JALGAON vs JOINT CIT, RANGE-2, JALGAON

ITA 556/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs M/S. KALA GENSET PVT.LTD, PUNE

ITA 517/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 20 lakhs and, in view of the CBDT Circular, the appeal was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the grounds.

ASST. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK vs ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD., PUNE

ITA 54/PUN/2012[2003-04]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2019AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's contentions regarding the reversal of a provision and the inclusion of scrap income. If these amounts were already taxed or offered for tax in the relevant years, they should be adjusted accordingly.

NILESH NANDKUMAR AGARWAL,PUNE vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

ITA 1128/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue in a group case was remanded to the AO by a co-ordinate bench. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment.

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,PUNE vs ASST. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE

ITA 1676/PUN/2011[2003-04]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2019AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's contentions regarding the reversal of a provision and the inclusion of scrap income. If these amounts were already taxed or offered for tax in the relevant years, they should be adjusted accordingly.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs MILIND BHALCHANDRA GATNE, NASHIK

ITA 211/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was solely due to the low tax effect involved, as per the CBDT circular.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs SANKALP STEELTECH CORP. PVT.LTD, PUNE

ITA 631/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the grounds raised.

M/S. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 1056/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bogus purchases should be restricted to 10% of the Gross Profit over and above the Gross Profit declared by the assessee. This decision was based on a previous ruling of the Tribunal in a similar case.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S. NETHAWK NETWORKS INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

ITA 117/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to include 'Maveric Systems Ltd.' as a comparable, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the exclusion of 'E-infochips Limited'.

THE PARBHANI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA 2499/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted for delayed PF contributions if deposited before the return filing due date, following the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that interest on delayed gratuity was not subject to TDS under Section 194A.

NETHAWK NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 2927/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to include 'Maveric Systems Ltd.' as a comparable, finding no infirmity in the reasoning. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the exclusion of 'E-infochips Limited'.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD., PUNE

ITA 425/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for issues where the quantum addition was deleted or remitted back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty also needed to be deleted or remitted. For issues where the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, the penalty deletion by the CIT(A) was sustained.

AGASTI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1075/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price is covered by a previous Tribunal order which remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the claim based on Supreme Court guidelines and amended rules.

MAJALGAON SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,BEED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD

ITA 1093/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD.,PUNE vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA 1831/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD., PUNE

ITA 1344/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the order for default under section 201(1) & 201(1A) was held to be barred by limitation, there was no outstanding demand. Consequently, the basis for levying penalty under section 271C was nil.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD., PUNE

ITA 1919/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

SHRINIWAS VITTHAL SIDDAM,AHMEDNAGAR vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 287/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and issue a clear show cause notice specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was being levied. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable.

INCOME -TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs M/S. SAUBHGYALAXMI DEVELOPERS, PUNE

ITA 1264/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, as its filing contravened the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue can approach for re-institution if exceptions apply.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-I, PUNE vs FAURECIA AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, PUNE

ITA 839/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that when the additions in the quantum appeal are deleted, there is no basis for sustaining the penalty. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(Appeals) was upheld.

ANAND PRAKASH KOTHARI,AHMEDNAGAR vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 2437/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the basis for the penalty levy (the additions made by the AO) was sent back to the AO for reconsideration, the penalty order was unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE vs RAJENDRA SITARAM GOEL, PUNE

ITA 924/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs PRAVEENKUMAR KAPOORCHAND MEHTA, PUNE

ITA 928/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

NARESH T. WADHWANI,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8, PUNE

ITA 722/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not fit for levy as the mistake in indexation was a bonafide error. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

SHREE STEEL INDUSTRIES,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8, PUNE

ITA 2567/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE

ITA 15/PUN/2018[2006-07]Status: Disposed16 Jul 2019AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the TPO/Assessing Officer erroneously considered the assessee's PLI at 3.87% instead of 6.01%. The appeal on this ground was allowed, directing the AO to verify the figures and grant the benefit of +/-5% if applicable, potentially eliminating the TP adjustment.

NORD DRIVESYSTEMS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS (CPC), GHAZIABAD

ITA 1447/PUN/2018[2013-14 (26Q/Qtr2)]Status: Disposed12 Jul 2019Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.

NORD DRIVESYSTEMS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS (CPC), GHAZIABAD

ITA 1457/PUN/2018[2014-15 (26Q/Qtr-3)]Status: Disposed12 Jul 2019Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.