ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash belonged to the company and its ownership did not change merely because the company claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer's reasoning for making a substantive addition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is not taxable. It directed the Assessing Officer to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court and previous Tribunal orders.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the applicability of Tribunal decisions and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to issue proper notice to the assessee before passing an order.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Due to procedural lapses regarding notice service and the assessee's non-appearance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Due to procedural lapses regarding notice service and the assessee's non-appearance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Due to procedural lapses regarding notice service and the assessee's non-appearance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Due to procedural lapses regarding notice service and the assessee's non-appearance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Due to procedural lapses regarding notice service and the assessee's non-appearance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash belonged to the company and its ownership did not change merely because the company claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer's reasoning for making a substantive addition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash belonged to the company and its ownership did not change merely because the company claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer's reasoning for making a substantive addition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash belonged to the company and its ownership did not change merely because the company claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer's reasoning for making a substantive addition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash belonged to the company and its ownership did not change merely because the company claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer's reasoning for making a substantive addition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash belonged to the company and its ownership did not change merely because the company claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer's reasoning for making a substantive addition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash belonged to the company and its ownership did not change merely because the company claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4). The Assessing Officer's reasoning for making a substantive addition was dismissed.

The tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. Therefore, the assessee was granted one final opportunity to defend their case.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not considered the population criteria for defining a capital asset. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that as per the CBDT circulars, appeals with a tax effect below the revised monetary limit are not to be entertained. The Tribunal also noted that these revised limits apply to pending appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal primarily for non-attendance without granting adequate opportunity. The Revenue did not seriously object to providing a hearing.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that reopening of a completed assessment solely for the purpose of verification, without any tangible material suggesting escapement of income, is not valid. Therefore, the jurisdiction assumed by the AO was not proper.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it fair and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on various judgments of higher courts and tribunals in deleting the additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal found ambiguity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the head of income. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order to clarify whether the income should be treated as business income or capital gains.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 for AY 1999-2000 due to ambiguity in the assessment year for a transaction. For the Wealth Tax appeal, the Tribunal upheld the directions of the CWT(A) to the Assessing Officer to verify property ownership, but the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the issues were still pending.

The Tribunal agreed to remand the issue of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) to the Assessing Officer to verify the existence of excess funds. The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was also remanded for fresh adjudication after recalculating the average investments.

The Tribunal corrected the error by substituting the Assessing Officer for the CIT(Appeals) in the directive. The rest of the order remains unchanged.

The Tribunal decided to remand the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the submission of additional evidence and the complexity of the land transactions. For A.Y. 2006-07, the Tribunal found that attributing crores to figures was unsustainable and ordered the AO to re-assess the amount, leading to a partial allowance. For A.Y. 2007-08, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and CIT(A) regarding coded figures.

The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision, held that additions for bogus purchases should be based on the difference in gross profit rates between genuine and bogus purchases, not a flat percentage. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The Tribunal corrected the error by substituting the Assessing Officer for the CIT(Appeals) in the directive. The rest of the order remains unchanged.

The Tribunal decided to remand the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the submission of additional evidence and the complexity of the land transactions. For A.Y. 2006-07, the Tribunal found that attributing crores to figures was unsustainable and ordered the AO to re-assess the amount, leading to a partial allowance. For A.Y. 2007-08, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and CIT(A) regarding coded figures.