ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal granted the prayer of the Revenue's counsel to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it merely extracted the AO's reasoning without applying its own mind. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) even without rural branches, based on a prior Tribunal decision. However, advertisement expenses for political greetings were disallowed as not for business purposes. The disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed, with a portion confirmed and another portion deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) even without rural branches, based on a prior Tribunal decision. However, advertisement expenses for political greetings were disallowed as not for business purposes. The disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed, with a portion confirmed and another portion deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee provides sufficient details to prove the veracity of an assessment aspect, and the Pr. CIT finds no fault with these details, the Pr. CIT cannot deem the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and direct a de novo examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in granting relief without calling for a remand report from the AO and without scrutinizing additional evidence. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the market price and concessional price cannot be automatically added to income. Addition should only be made to the extent the concessional sale price is below the cost price, considering it as appropriation of profit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) even without rural branches, based on a prior Tribunal decision. However, advertisement expenses for political greetings were disallowed as not for business purposes. The disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed, with a portion confirmed and another portion deleted.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning and confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO. The assessee's failure to comply with the statutory requirements led to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the first installment of the loan and a portion of the second installment were explained. However, the source of a cash deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs within the lender's account required further investigation.

The Tribunal clarified that income from deputation of technical manpower and onsite software services is eligible for deduction under Section 10A, following its own previous decisions. Regarding foreign exchange fluctuation gains, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of capital and revenue account components.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess sugarcane price to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the SMP vs. FRP regime. The harvesting and transportation expenses were allowed as per CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it failed to address the core issues and discrepancies raised by the Revenue. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on mere suspicion, as the loan transactions were through banking channels, and the father's creditworthiness was supported by his own loan dealings. The Tribunal found no evidence of money laundering or non-discharge of onus by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) for initiating and levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that companies with significantly higher turnover than the assessee cannot be considered comparables. It directed the exclusion of two such companies from the list of comparables.

The Tribunal held that the first installment of the loan and a portion of the second installment were explained. However, the source of a cash deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs within the lender's account required further investigation.

The Tribunal clarified that income from deputation of technical manpower and onsite software services is eligible for deduction under Section 10A, following its own previous decisions. Regarding foreign exchange fluctuation gains, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of capital and revenue account components.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess sugarcane price to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the SMP vs. FRP regime. The harvesting and transportation expenses were allowed as per CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) for initiating and levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the first installment of the loan and a portion of the second installment were explained. However, the source of a cash deposit of Rs. 11 lakhs within the lender's account required further investigation.

The Tribunal held that Persistent Systems Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparables as it was functionally different and engaged in software product development without adequate segmental information. The ground regarding initiation of penalty proceedings was considered premature.

The Tribunal held that while the TPO can determine the ALP of other international transactions that come to his notice, this power does not extend to Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs). The matter was remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect, as it falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The Revenue is at liberty to seek restoration if exceptions apply.

The Tribunal held that Section 10A(7) can only be invoked to prevent abuse of tax concessions through profit manipulation between associated concerns. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude certain companies from the comparable list and delete additions related to prior period expenses.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not made any specific observations regarding the land's location relative to municipal limits and the assessee's claim of it being agricultural land. Therefore, the issue requires fresh examination by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that Section 10A(7) can only be invoked to prevent abuse of tax concessions through profit manipulation between associated concerns. It also upheld the deletion of prior period expenses and dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding the method of computing ALP.