ITAT Pune Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in calculating the operating margin of UMS Technologies Ltd. at -5% by disregarding its audited segmental results. When considering the audited results, the margin of UMS Technologies Ltd. was comparable to the assessee's loss, thus no adjustment was warranted.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted as the assessee earned no exempt income, relying on the Supreme Court's decision. For Section 40A(2)(b), the Tribunal found the disallowance to be ad-hoc and deleted it as no evidence of excessive or unreasonable payments was presented.

The Tribunal held that E-Infochips Ltd. should be excluded as it was engaged in manufacturing activities besides software development. It also upheld the exclusion of L&T Info Tech Ltd., Infosys Technologies Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. due to significantly higher turnovers compared to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Thirdware Solutions Ltd. could not be considered a comparable entity due to the absence of segment reporting for its various revenue streams. Consequently, the AO was directed to exclude this company and re-work the addition.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed uploaded the required documents, but the CIT (Exemption) failed to utilize them. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice were followed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied by uploading the required documents, and the CIT (Exemption) failed to utilize this information. This was considered a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed uploaded the required documents, but the CIT (Exemption) failed to utilize them. This was considered a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had uploaded the required documents, but the CIT (Exemption) failed to utilize the information. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 35(2AB) cannot be denied solely for the absence of Form No. 3CL, as it is a procedural lapse. However, the allowability of the expenditure needs to be verified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the interest received under the Land Acquisition Act as per Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, relying on a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a qualified doctor running a nursing home, is considered a professional and not a businesswoman. Therefore, the provisions of Section 44AA apply, and the penalty under Section 271B for not obtaining an audit under Section 44AB was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the imposition of fees under Section 234E was in accordance with the law, as there was a delay in filing the TDS return and no reasonable cause was provided for condonation. The constitutional validity of Section 234E was also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the selling expenses. It found that the payments were not essential for the transfer of the land and lacked proper evidence to establish their connection to the capital gains. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the timing of payments and the nature of the suit filed.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 35(2AB) cannot be denied solely for the absence of Form No. 3CL, as it is a procedural lapse. However, the allowability of the expenditure needs to be verified.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals for delay in filing. For the other set of appeals, the Tribunal found the issue covered by a previous order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed uploaded the required information, but the CIT (Exemption) failed to utilize it. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the AO did not emanate from the reasons recorded for reopening, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were not sustainable. Consequently, the assessment order and the impugned order were struck down.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the surrendered income of Rs. 38,25,000/- is business income or income from other sources requires further examination. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A should be computed considering only investments that yielded exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with the inspector's report. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that training government employees indirectly benefits the public and that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application. The Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemption) to issue the registration certificate.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and verifications during the assessment proceedings concerning the cash deposits. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be unsustainable as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had wrongly interpreted the assessee's statement and failed to properly examine the profit and loss account. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for re-evaluation of the profit for the period after January 19, 2010.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not correctly initiated under Section 147/148 of the Act, as Section 153C should have been invoked. Since the quantum addition was deleted in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable in law because the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) for initiating and levying the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and verifications during the assessment proceedings concerning the cash deposits. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be unsustainable as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and verifications during the assessment proceedings concerning the cash deposits. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be unsustainable as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the addition of Rs. 52,00,000 on account of FDRs resulted in a double addition. The issue was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, restricted the disallowance under Section 14A. The disallowance was reduced to Rs. 1,50,000 for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 1,25,000 for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee challenging the reopening. Considering principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's ruling in GKN Drive Shaft, the assessment order was set aside and the issues were restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation on HTM securities was fair and reasonable, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding profit on sale of investments, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's ground.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee challenging the reopening. Considering principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court's ruling in GKN Drive Shaft, the assessment order was set aside and the issues were restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,93,26,224 made under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) that there is a clear distinction between deposits and loans/advances, and Section 2(22)(e) specifically refers to loans or advances. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) relied on the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which held that ICDs cannot be treated as loans falling within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e). Regarding the Rs. 2,53,59,490, the Tribunal found an inherent contradiction in the Revenue's case. If the amount was an unexplained cash investment by the Director for purchasing a flat in his name, it could not be added to the assessee company's income. The Tribunal applied the concept of telescoping, citing decisions from the Madras and Allahabad High Courts, and held that telescoping is permissible when there is an addition on account of suppression of profit and a cash credit, allowing for adjustment of suppressed profits against cash credits. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to this issue, subject to the observation that the assessee might need to bring the ownership of the property back to the assessee's balance sheet to the proportion of the company's contribution.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and suffered from ambiguity in specifying the correct limb of Section 271(1)(c) for initiating and levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty is unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, restricted the disallowance under Section 14A. The disallowance was reduced to Rs. 1,50,000 for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 1,25,000 for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and the subsidy was covered by Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Collector's approval, under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and MRTP Act, qualified as approval by a 'Local Authority' for the purpose of Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal held that the delay in granting approval by the Pr. CIT was not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, the deduction under Section 36(1)(v) should not be denied due to the Revenue's inaction.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was solely based on the low tax effect, which fell below the threshold set by the latest CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider the assessee's submissions and grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reference to the DVO for the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was invalid under the pre-amended Section 55A, as the AO's opinion was that the assessee's declared value was lower. The stamp duty value was accepted as the full value of consideration.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.