ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that interest earned on share capital deposits, made as per government directions for setting up a factory, cannot be taxed as 'Income from Other Sources'. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of notional interest from MSEDC back to the AO for fresh examination.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to comply with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner of the property at the time of sale due to a prior partition deed, thus not eligible for capital gains exemptions. However, the amount received for extinguishment of rights was taxable as capital gain.

The Tribunal held that income derived from saplings and seedlings grown in a nursery is agricultural income, following previous decisions. The disallowance of depreciation was consequently reversed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issues were squarely covered by the jurisdictional High Court's rulings in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner of the property at the time of sale due to a prior partition deed, thus not eligible for capital gains exemptions. However, the amount received for extinguishment of rights was taxable as capital gain.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the capital gains are to be assessed in AY 2012-13 as the date of transfer was 26-08-2011. The assessee failed to fulfill the conditions for exemption under Section 54F by not purchasing a new residential house within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's plea to give appeal effect to previous favorable orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to compute the correct MAT credit by giving effect to those orders.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations are capital in nature and not chargeable to tax, hence their non-reflection in the income and expenditure account does not make the trust's activities non-genuine. The CIT's doubts about genuineness were found to be without justification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that opening balances from earlier years, even if from bogus parties, cannot be added as unexplained cash credits in the current assessment year under Section 68. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's alternative argument to invoke Section 41(1).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, including filing declarations and obtaining a certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the additional income disclosed during the survey was attributable to the assessee's business activity and therefore eligible for all allowances under Section 40(b). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if there were issues with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not adequately examined the charitable nature of the objects and the genuineness of the activities. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not properly examined the charitable nature of the objects and the genuineness of the activities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest on advances was not disallowable as it was for business purposes. The 'rate difference' on purchases was also allowed as the assessee had availed a longer credit period. The addition for outstanding liability to a director's concern was deleted. However, the matter of differences in creditor balances was restored to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not recorded clear satisfaction and had levied penalty for both 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' without proper show cause notice. The penalty order was set aside due to non-fulfillment of basic conditions for levy.

The Tribunal held that addition for bogus purchases should be limited to the profit element, not the full amount. The assessee's offer of 21.55% gross profit was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated because the AO initiated them on the ground of bogus purchases but made the addition under Section 40A(3), which presupposes the genuineness of the transaction. The addition was deleted as it was made on a ground different from the one for which the notice was issued.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with proper submissions and documents.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments made without following the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act are bad in law. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal deleted the adjustments made by the TPO.

The Tribunal held that Coral Hub Limited and Cosmic Global Limited were functionally comparable to the assessee and upheld their inclusion in the comparable set. However, Eclerx Services Limited was excluded as it was not functionally similar, and R Systems International Limited was excluded due to persistent losses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction as per Section 35(2AB) based on its own case for a prior assessment year. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. For the second appeal, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments made without following the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act are bad in law. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal deleted the adjustments made by the TPO.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee offered the income for taxation, its subsequent utilization through bank deposits should not lead to a further addition. Making an addition at the time of earning and another at the time of spending is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction as per Section 35(2AB) based on its own case for a prior assessment year. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. For the second appeal, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments made without following the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act are bad in law. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal deleted the adjustments made by the TPO.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal request and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions regarding the allowability of the deduction and the applicability of Section 154 were not raised before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition itself was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication by a previous ITAT order. Therefore, the penalty issue also needed to be decided by the AO in light of the re-adjudication.

The ITAT allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee filing the relevant form under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the revenue having no objection.

The Tribunal held that under the mercantile system of accounting, a deduction can be claimed when the liability becomes enforceable. The liability in this case crystalized and became enforceable upon the dismissal of the assessee's civil suit for specific performance by the Civil Court.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the default as the crossed cheques were cancelled and converted to bearer cheques to meet urgent cash requirements of the creditors. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271E read with Section 273B should be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that one appeal had already been disposed of and the present appeal had become infructuous. The revenue had no objection to this course of action.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had complied with its requirements. Therefore, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as the assessee intended to avail the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had complied with its requirements. Therefore, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely due to a difference of opinion on the classification of income when the assessee has acted bona fide. The deletion of penalty for foreign tour expenses was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income on time, considering her status as an agriculturist, illiterate, and facing financial/family problems. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271F was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limits for filing appeals upwards. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the revised limit, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain it.