ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2019

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without issuing proper notices to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Medical Council of India's circular is not applicable to pharmaceutical companies for disallowing marketing and sales promotion expenses. It also held that credit for foreign TDS is allowable even if paid in a subsequent year, following established precedents.

The Tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, following precedents from coordinate benches and Supreme Court judgments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds challenging the assessment order's validity. It allowed the claim for education cess and depreciation on premises, and deleted transfer pricing additions for royalty and indenting commission. The disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for provision for warranty, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. Grounds related to section 50C and reduction of share capital were dismissed as not pressed. The issue of leave encashment provision was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that each windmill unit should be considered a separate undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IA(4). The deduction should be calculated independently for each unit, not on a consolidated basis.

The Tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, following precedents from coordinate benches and Supreme Court judgments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) invoked. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that each windmill unit should be considered a separate undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IA(4). The deduction should be calculated independently for each unit, not on a consolidated basis.

The Tribunal held that each windmill unit should be considered a separate undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IA(4). The deduction should be calculated independently for each unit, not on a consolidated basis.

The Tribunal held that the assessee received the entire Rs. 10,00,000/- from the sale of land and had also offered it for taxation. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- was not proper.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance for interest expenditure was warranted as the assessee's own interest-free funds were sufficient to cover its investments. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable even in cases of violations, citing settled law and previous decisions. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if exceptions in the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that losses or depreciation from earlier years, already absorbed against other business profits, cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against profits of the eligible business for computing Section 80IA deduction. The assessee is eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT Circulars. The monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal has been enhanced to Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if exceptions in the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that issuing a demand notice and penalty notice along with a draft assessment order violates Section 144C. Such an order is considered invalid in law and void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the payment for software license renewal to a resident payee was not royalty, thus the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect. It also held that interest under sections 234B and 234C should not be levied to the extent the MAT computation was affected by a retrospective amendment.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the modalities and accounts used to determine the final price under Clause 5A.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the modalities and accounts used to determine the final price under Clause 5A.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as it fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the modalities and accounts used to determine the final price under Clause 5A.

The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the modalities and accounts used to determine the final price under Clause 5A.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the modalities and accounts used to determine the final price under Clause 5A.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per the Supreme Court's judgment. The provision for VSI contribution was held to be an allowable deduction.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record specific satisfaction for each addition and to mention the appropriate limb of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the remuneration paid to directors was reasonable and that assembling components constitutes manufacturing for Section 80IB(5) purposes. Depreciation on WIP was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the modalities and accounts used to determine the final price under Clause 5A.

The Tribunal, following previous High Court decisions, directed the exclusion of specific companies like Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., Cosmic Global Ltd., and Eclerx Services Limited from the comparable list. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh determination of the Arm's Length Price.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not leviable as the assessee had sought an adjournment and no notice under section 142(1) was issued for the adjourned date. Therefore, there was no default in attendance.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, enhanced to ₹50 lakhs, apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below this limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, enhanced to ₹50 lakhs, apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below this limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, enhanced to ₹50 lakhs, apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below this limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, enhanced to ₹50 lakhs, apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below this limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, enhanced to ₹50 lakhs, apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below this limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to Rs. 50.00 lakh and this circular has retrospective effect. Therefore, the appeals with tax effect below this limit were not entertained.

The Tribunal held that the management fees transaction could not be clubbed with other international transactions for benchmarking. The matter was remanded back to the AO/TPO to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the management services transaction independently.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., held that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer. The AO needs to determine the profit component within the excess payment to decide deductibility.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., held that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer. The AO needs to determine the profit component within the excess payment to decide deductibility.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., held that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer. The AO needs to determine the profit component within the excess payment to decide deductibility.

The Tribunal held that PF contributions made before the due date of filing the return are deductible. It also found no violation of Rule 46A by the CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence. However, the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was remanded for de-novo consideration.