ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should only consider investments yielding exempt income, restoring the issue to the AO for recalculation. For Section 35(2AB), following a previous decision, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction, stating that once the R&D facility is recognized, the AO's role is to allow the expenditure.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-appearance and decided to grant one more opportunity. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 234E, as amended by the Finance Act, 2015, were not applicable to the period prior to the amendment. Therefore, the late fee levied was not valid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the fresh claim made by the assessee before the appellate authority. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow relief based on the principle of mutuality, citing a jurisdictional High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that entity-wise margins should be considered for benchmarking, not just segmental margins for gold and silver. It also ruled that no separate adjustment is needed for director's remuneration if entity-level results are within arm's length.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the pendency of a High Court appeal on a similar issue for an earlier year was not a ground to deny relief.

The Tribunal held that the payments for RSC were at arm's length, especially since they were accepted in prior years. It also found no merit in the TPO's contention of duplicated services between different agreements.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the administrative Commissioner before extending the scrutiny to issues not covered by CASS. Consequently, the additions made were unsustainable.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that interest under section 201(1A) cannot be charged if there is no tax liability in the hands of the payee. Following a precedent, the interest charged was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding it well-reasoned. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee was eligible for deduction on most projects but not for the two sub-contracts which were considered works contracts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) and that proportionate deduction should be allowed for the eligible flats, following previous Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the administrative Commissioner before extending the scrutiny to issues not covered by CASS. Consequently, the additions made were unsustainable.

The Tribunal decided that the excess sugarcane price paid was not deductible as expenditure, remitting the matter to the AO for determining the modalities. Other issues like Chief Minister's relief fund contribution and temporary shade write-off were also addressed, with some matters being restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in the appeals was less than the revised monetary limit, the appeals were not maintainable. The CBDT circular also directed withdrawal of pending appeals below the revised limit.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, remitting the matter back for a detailed analysis of the assessee's receipts and expenditures in conjunction with financial statements and verification of corporate donors.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in the appeals was less than the revised monetary limit, the appeals were not maintainable. The CBDT circular also directed withdrawal of pending appeals below the revised limit.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed only on investments that yielded exempt income, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and a Special Bench of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not be sustained as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search, and the assessment year was a completed assessment. Regarding profit estimation, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue applying a net profit rate of 8% to gross contract receipts, excluding certain specific income items.

The Tribunal found that the distinction between transferring 'know-how to manufacture' and the 'right to manufacture' required detailed factual verification. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not be sustained as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search, and the assessment year was a completed assessment. Regarding profit estimation, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue applying a net profit rate of 8% to gross contract receipts, excluding certain specific income items.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid due to a discrepancy between the amounts mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening and the actual additions made. This inconsistency rendered the assessment invalid.