ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction. This decision was based on a previous ruling by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11, where the assessee's claim was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s adjudication suffered due to the assessee's absence, potentially leading to a misunderstanding of facts. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not initiated in accordance with the law, as the reasons recorded by the AO were for verification and not based on tangible material. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the reassessment proceedings were set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction. This decision was based on a previous ruling by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11, where the assessee's claim was accepted.

The Tribunal, following its previous order in the assessee's own case, remanded the matters concerning transfer pricing adjustments for technical assistance fees and project management fees back to the TPO/AO to determine the ALP. The issue of depreciation on capitalized technical assistance fees was also remitted for fresh determination.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal based on the low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT circulars. The Revenue's appeal was found to be outside the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal based on the low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by the latest CBDT Circulars. The Tribunal clarified that the Revenue could seek restoration if the appeal falls under exceptions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal, following its previous order in the assessee's own case, remanded the matters concerning transfer pricing adjustments for technical assistance fees and project management fees back to the TPO/AO to determine the ALP. The issue of depreciation on capitalized technical assistance fees was also remitted for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the provision for slow-moving stock is an allowable deduction. Considering the additional evidence of subsequent sales and trend analysis, the Tribunal found the AO's disallowance unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of suppressed GP, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee's claim of additional expenses was not genuine and the trading account filed later was not credible. However, for another disallowance, the Tribunal restricted it further to 5% in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the provision for slow-moving stock is an allowable deduction. Considering the additional evidence of subsequent sales and trend analysis, the Tribunal found the AO's disallowance unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was solely due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the relevant CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that sales tax benefits are not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, dismissing those grounds. However, it allowed grounds related to the adjustment of brought forward losses/depreciation, stating that only losses beginning from the initial assessment year chosen for deduction should be considered, not those already set off against other income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Sales Tax exemptions, upholding the assessee's claim of capital receipt. However, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with one issue being remanded and the inclusion of two companies as comparables being directed to be excluded.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Sales Tax exemptions, upholding the assessee's claim of capital receipt. However, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with one issue being remanded and the inclusion of two companies as comparables being directed to be excluded.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the AO for fresh verification, following its own prior order. The additional disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) was deleted as no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, finding it to be a legal issue. It decided to remand the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of both the original and additional grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Both issues raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate them after considering the provided evidence and granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that if the primary addition made for re-opening the assessment is deleted, subsequent additions made on other grounds during the reassessment proceedings are unsustainable. Therefore, the additions on account of unsecured loans and bank interest were also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous orders in the assessee's own case. It was held that income from the sale of scrap is derived from the eligible business and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction for a specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) during assessment and issue a proper show cause notice for that limb before levying penalty. Since this was not done, the penalty was not sustainable.

The tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a sufficient opportunity of hearing to be afforded to parties. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after granting adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 54F by the Finance Act (No.2) Act, 2014, the purchase of multiple residential units in the same building qualified for deduction. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction on all three flats.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was a 'change of opinion' and therefore bad in law. The Revenue failed to point out any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that Section 69 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the amount in question was a liability reflected in the assessee's books, not an unexplained investment. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 92C(4) does not debar deduction under Section 10A on additional income in an assessment under Section 92CD. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfied the conditions of Section 10A(3) read with Section 92CD(2) as per the APA.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT Circulars. The tax effect was admitted by the Revenue's representative to be less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits and that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the grounds raised by the Revenue was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus of providing evidence, the ad-hoc disallowance of 5% was not sufficiently justified. Therefore, the addition was modified to a lump sum of Rs. 5,00,000.

The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by a previous decision where the investment was made within six months of receiving sale consideration, even if it was after the sale deed execution. The Tribunal noted that there's no restriction on utilizing sale consideration for other purposes before investing in specified assets.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the appropriate limb of Section 271(1)(c) while initiating and levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the purchase price of sugarcane and harvesting/transportation expenses were distinct and genuine payments. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw both appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Unit II was a separate and independent unit, supported by various government acknowledgments. It also ruled that foreign exchange gains and interest income were eligible for deduction under Section 10A, following High Court precedents.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be computed by considering only investments that yielded exempt income, following a co-ordinate bench decision. Regarding Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal ruled that once the R&D facility is recognized, the Assessing Officer's role is to allow the expenditure, reversing the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to member companies were not in the nature of sub-contracts, and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amount collected towards ERF cannot be considered as income of the assessee as it acted as a conduit for collection and remittance. Therefore, Section 43B is not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the AO/TPO could not alter the rate of interest for working capital adjustment from the originally accepted rate of 9.86% when giving effect to the DRP's directions, as this was not part of the DRP's mandate. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground regarding depreciation adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12. Following a previous decision, it was ruled that an appeal pending before the CIT(A) constitutes 'assessment proceedings pending' for the purpose of the proviso to section 12A(2).

The Tribunal held that the professional fees were incurred for the society's activities and that the interest income should be adjusted against these expenses, following a previous identical ruling. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the claim of deduction.

The Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property' as per later Supreme Court judgments. Such income, if any, would fall under 'Profits and gains from business or profession'.

The Tribunal held that the entire loss from the spouse's business, set up with gifted funds, is eligible for clubbing and set off against the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not fulfill the basic condition for levying penalty as there was a discrepancy between the satisfaction recorded during assessment (for both concealment and inaccurate particulars) and the penalty order (only for inaccurate particulars). The penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property' as per later Supreme Court judgments. Such income, if any, would fall under 'Profits and gains from business or profession'.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was ambiguous as it mentioned both "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be bad in law due to this lack of clarity.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss on an ECB loan used for acquiring indigenous fixed assets should be allowed as revenue expenditure, not capitalized. It directed the AO to withdraw depreciation on the capitalized amount and re-work depreciation.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as it was supported by a High Court decision that dismissed the Revenue's appeal in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.