ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) levied penalty for both limbs (concealment and inaccurate particulars) without issuing a proper show cause notice for both, violating principles of natural justice. The AO's satisfaction recorded during assessment was for 'concealment of income', but the penalty order covered both limbs.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted as the cash payments were made for the purchase of land which formed part of the closing stock and was not claimed as a deduction in the current year.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) levied penalty for both limbs (concealment and inaccurate particulars) without issuing a proper show cause notice for both, violating principles of natural justice. The AO's satisfaction recorded during assessment was for 'concealment of income', but the penalty order covered both limbs.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A requires re-examination by the AO due to lack of material on interest-free funds and details of expenses for exempt income. For additional depreciation on windmills, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, following favorable rulings from the ITAT and the Bombay High Court.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal without deciding on merits, even if ex-parte. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed permitted financing activities and the AO himself had computed business income in the assessment order. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as it was based on mere verification and suspicion, not on tangible material indicating escapement of income. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal in identical cases of family members of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as it was based on mere verification and suspicion, not on tangible material indicating escapement of income. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal in identical cases of family members of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as it was based on mere verification and suspicion, not on tangible material indicating escapement of income. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal in identical cases of family members of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that once a valid revised return is filed within the prescribed time, it substitutes the original return. The AO cannot refer to the original return for assessment purposes. Therefore, the AO was directed to consider the income declared in the revised return.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal without deciding the issue on merits, even in an ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs as the assessee had voluntarily admitted it during the survey and did not retract the admission. However, the addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- for household expenses was deleted as the Rs. 5 lakhs addition was considered sufficient to cover it.

The Tribunal held that the 2011 census data was not publicly available before the start of the relevant financial year. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction based on the previous census data (2001).

The Tribunal held that cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 8 lakhs were explained by the agricultural income of the assessee's father. However, the remaining addition of Rs. 2,17,000/- was upheld due to lack of explanation.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction for invoking Section 14A when the assessee had already offered a suo moto disallowance. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. Regarding weighted deduction, the Tribunal held that pre-amendment rules allowed the full deduction if the facility was registered, irrespective of DSIR's year-to-year approval.

The Tribunal restored the issues of excess cane price payment and sale of sugar at concessional rates back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide these issues afresh in line with the Supreme Court's judgment and the Tribunal's previous orders in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction for invoking Section 14A when the assessee had already offered a suo moto disallowance. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. Regarding weighted deduction, the Tribunal held that pre-amendment rules allowed the full deduction if the facility was registered, irrespective of DSIR's year-to-year approval.

The tribunal considered the assessee's written request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not have made the disallowance solely based on the report of the District Superintendent Agriculture Officer without any contrary evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had shown similar income from mangoes in earlier years which was not disturbed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal for AY 2008-09. For AY 2007-08, the issue of reopening was dismissed as not pressed, and the matter of income enhancement was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment for royalty payment by following its own precedent for preceding assessment years. Similarly, the addition for management fee was also deleted, respecting prior tribunal decisions on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that when the difference between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation is marginal (less than 10%), a liberal approach should be adopted in favor of the assessee. The actual sale consideration should be considered for determining capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated due to a 'change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal for AY 2008-09. For AY 2007-08, the issue of reopening was dismissed as not pressed, and the matter of income enhancement was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that transfer pricing adjustments should be confined only to international transactions and not entity-level transactions. This aligns with the jurisdictional High Court's rulings.

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 were not entertained.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is not applicable for assessment years prior to 2008-09. Therefore, the AO could not have made the disallowance by following the formula prescribed under Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue 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.

The Tribunal held that the area of projected terrace (open to sky) should not be included for computing built-up area under Section 80IB(10). Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the full deduction. The Revenue's appeal against proportionate deduction was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised upward the monetary limits for filing appeals, has retrospective effect and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not entertained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the deduction under Section 80IA should be recalculated based on the assessee's chosen initial assessment year. It also ruled that the discount on pre-payment of sales tax liability was not taxable under Section 41(1), following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice over technicalities and the absence of malafide intention. It further held that the employees' contribution to Provident Fund, deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is eligible for deduction under Section 43B.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record clear satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of calculating capital gains, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs is to be taken into account, irrespective of whether the full amount was received or not. The plea regarding expenditure incurred for site development was also rejected due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses by the AO was not justified as no specific instance of non-business expenditure was pointed out. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, negating the diversion of borrowed funds.

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 has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

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 has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, as the tax effect in each case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The cross-objection filed by the assessee became infructuous.

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 has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses by the AO was not justified as no specific instance of non-business expenditure was pointed out. Regarding interest expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, negating the diversion of borrowed funds.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised upward the monetary limits for filing appeals, has retrospective effect and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were not entertained.

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 has retrospective effect. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was also dismissed on merits.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 54F effective from AY 2015-16, multiple residential units at the same location were eligible for deduction. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction on both flats.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on the escrow account, maintained as per bank loan conditions for vessel acquisition, should be considered as income from shipping business and not non-tonnage income. Therefore, it should be taxed as part of the tonnage income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after granting adequate opportunity to both parties.

The Tribunal held that to the extent of Rs. 13 lakhs, where penalty was levied under Section 271D for cash loans, the parties were identified and no addition was warranted. For the balance amount, no plausible information was furnished.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT's revised monetary limits for filing appeals, as per Circular No. 17/2019, apply retrospectively to all pending appeals. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were not entertained.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised upward the monetary limits for filing appeals, has retrospective effect and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were not entertained.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised upward the monetary limits for filing appeals, has retrospective effect and applies to all pending appeals. Since the tax effect in all appeals was below the revised limit, the appeals were not entertained.