ITAT Pune Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the gain from the sale of agricultural land should be treated as capital gains, not business income, as the assessee's intention was to hold it as a capital asset. The issue of disallowance of cost of improvement was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The Tribunal noted that the case did not fall under any exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on a subsequent favorable order for registration under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that since the books of account were not formally rejected, an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 1 lakh should meet the ends of justice. Item-wise additions were not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the eligible unit in Flat No. 301 in the B wing, based on the theory of proportionate deduction. This decision followed previous rulings by the Tribunal and the Madras High Court.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed details before the Assessing Officer and that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence properly. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake was bona fide and inadvertent, as evidenced by their acceptance of the addition and payment of taxes. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54F should be reckoned from the date of possession of the new residential house. Since the assessee took possession within two years of the sale of the old property, the deduction is allowable.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions were made in the preceding year and restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision, following the directions given for the previous year. The assessee was granted an opportunity to prove the genuineness of transactions.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to repairs and maintenance of vehicles and depreciation on trucks due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence. However, the Tribunal allowed the ground related to office printing, stationery, and travelling expenses, finding the claim reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while Section 43CA mandates reference to the Valuation Officer if the stamp duty value exceeds the fair market value, the AO should have offered this option to the assessee, even if not explicitly requested. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that when undisclosed income is earned and undisclosed expenditure is incurred for earning that income, only the net amount should be added. In this case, the net outflow was Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. 26 lakh expenses vs. Rs. 25 lakh receipts), plus Rs. 10.71 lakh for flat investment and Rs. 5 lakh for other omissions, totaling Rs. 16.71 lakh, which was covered by the Rs. 17 lakh offered.

The Tribunal held that losses absorbed in earlier years against other business income cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against profits of the eligible business. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the Pr. CIT's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the evidence presented and procedural deficiencies in the assessment. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of loans by the assessee is a significant factor that requires thorough investigation by the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The issue of the addition was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-computation, directing him to consider loan agreements and actual interest payable, not just TDS figures.

For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the AO initiated proceedings for inaccurate particulars but levied penalty for concealment of income, contrary to the jurisdictional High Court's decision. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% on bogus Hawala purchases, following a previous Tribunal ruling.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal concerning the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Since this claim was not examined by the AO, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed before June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A(1) was prospective. The Tribunal also noted that appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) on delay without considering the merits.

The Tribunal restored most issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification, citing the need for detailed fact-finding and adherence to natural justice. For one ground, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of non-compliance.

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance of aircraft expenses to 15%, following its own precedent. The Section 14A disallowance was dismissed as infructuous. The Revenue's grounds regarding depreciation on printers, commission to directors, and capital subsidy were dismissed, while the ground on aircraft expenses was partly allowed.

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance of aircraft expenses to 15%, following its own precedent. The Section 14A disallowance was dismissed as infructuous. The Revenue's grounds regarding depreciation on printers, commission to directors, and capital subsidy were dismissed, while the ground on aircraft expenses was partly allowed.