ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2020

The Tribunal directed the allowance of interest and remuneration to partners as per Section 40(b). Expenses paid through banking channels like bank commission, staff salary, and telephone bills were also allowed. The remaining expenses were disallowed at 20%.

The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were recorded in the regularly maintained books of account and no negative cash balance was found, the addition and consequential penalty were unjustified. The explanation that the excess deposit represented re-deposits of earlier withdrawals was accepted.

The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation rate was without basis. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the average of comparable sale instances from the DVO's preliminary report for determining the fair market value.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, directing the assessee to provide supporting evidence. This was based on the assessee's contention of not having had an opportunity to produce evidence and the revenue's agreement for remand.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the subsequent assessment order did not result in any demand, making the appeal of academic interest. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission that the assessed income was not disturbed.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Pr.CIT Vs. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., held that ad hoc additions for bogus purchases should not be made. Instead, additions should be limited to the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine and hawala purchases.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case.

The Tribunal found that the rights and liabilities of the parties were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent their case.

The Tribunal found that the rights and liabilities of the parties were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent their case.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity before the CIT(A), the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

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

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demands raised were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that following recent Supreme Court judgments, income from properties held as stock-in-trade by a builder is taxable under 'Profits and gains from business or profession', not 'Income from house property'. Therefore, a notional annual letting value cannot be added.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) orders were ex-parte and the assessee's case was not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the assessee should be given a final opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) orders were ex-parte and the assessee's case was not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the assessee should be given a final opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the expenditures were genuine and the claims made by the assessee were bona fide mistakes, not intended to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings on one limb (concealment) and imposing penalty on both limbs (concealment and inaccurate particulars) is not maintainable. Following a High Court decision, the penalty was deemed invalid.

The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeals, stating that during the set-aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's contentions and passed an assessment order without additions. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the issue was similar to a previous year's case decided in favor of the assessee, which was also upheld by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, the deduction should be allowed.

The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeals, stating that during the set-aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's contentions and passed an assessment order without additions. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeals, stating that during the set-aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's contentions and passed an assessment order without additions. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. Since the suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee was greater than the exempt income, no further disallowance was permissible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, stating that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions stipulated in Section 54B for claiming exemption. Therefore, the exemption was rightly denied.