ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for improvising and modifying existing products, which are regular and do not result in new assets, are revenue in nature and thus allowable. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal allowed the benefit of telescoping, reducing the addition by the amount of previously taxed income available. The addition was sustained to the extent of the loan amount not covered by the available funds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's assumption of revisionary jurisdiction was not justified as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's observation that certain letters were not on record was incorrect, and that the Commissioner had not demonstrated that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for improvising and modifying existing products, which are regular and do not result in new assets, are revenue in nature and thus allowable. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for improvising and modifying existing products, which are regular and do not result in new assets, are revenue in nature and thus allowable. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for improvising and modifying existing products, which are regular and do not result in new assets, are revenue in nature and thus allowable. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty order unsustainable due to this lack of specificity.

The Tribunal allowed the benefit of telescoping, reducing the addition by the amount of previously taxed income available. The addition was sustained to the extent of the loan amount not covered by the available funds.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of an Rs. 8.00 lakh addition, holding it should be examined in the hands of another individual. For other additions related to unrecorded loans, the Tribunal sustained them, allowing the benefit of telescoping where applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also remitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were not adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals) in the first round, back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were remanded, the penalty issues should also be remanded to the CIT(A) for a consistent decision. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside pending fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's assumption of revisionary jurisdiction was not justified as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's observation that certain letters were not on record was incorrect, and that the Commissioner had not demonstrated that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer mechanically followed the previous year's assessment without appreciating the nature of expenses. Section 40(a)(ia) applies to business expenses, whereas these expenses fell under 'Income from Other Sources'.

The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, the Tribunal had deleted the enhanced addition made by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty, being linked to the deleted addition, did not survive.

The Tribunal found that the issues were similar to earlier assessment years where similar grounds were remanded to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that failure to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, despite requests, renders the reassessment order bad in law. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments stating this is a mandatory condition.

The Tribunal noted that in a previous assessment year (2005-06), the assessee was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80IB based on similar SSI unit qualification. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, considering the previous order and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the issues were similar to earlier assessment years where similar grounds were remanded to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and determination of quantum, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.