ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty imposed on account of that addition should also be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Octroi refund subsidy, granted to encourage setting up or expansion of industries in backward areas, is capital in nature. Therefore, it is not chargeable to tax.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow proportionate deduction for eligible units, following previous tribunal rulings. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO is duty-bound to dispose of objections raised against the reopening of assessment by a separate speaking order. Failure to do so renders the assessment order unsustainable in law, as per the decision in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify the nexus between loans advanced and interest paid for the purpose of earning interest income under Section 57(iii) without concrete findings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained the necessary approval. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 7,71,115/- related to Parul R. Desai, finding sufficient substantiation. However, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- related to Sonal Dinkar Khape was confirmed due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to correct the Hawala purchase amount due to a typographical error and to restrict the addition to 15% of the unverifiable purchases, finding no infirmity in the order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 7,03,000/-. This was because confirmations and commission agreements were filed for 7 parties, but no evidence was found for commission paid to one specific person, Jignesh S. Ajmera.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issue of warranty expenses was settled in favor of the assessee based on previous ITAT orders. Similarly, SAP implementation costs were held to be revenue expenditure, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the revenue's no objection.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a credit co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It also held that interest on income-tax refund is similarly deductible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing pro-rata deduction for the eligible units based on judicial precedents. The deduction for the 8 non-eligible flats was rightly denied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on their merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of depreciation on cars and the claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4), following its own previous decisions. An additional ground regarding provision for expenses was remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on account of low tax effect without going into the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on their merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on their merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on account of low tax effect without going into the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Section 69C was not applicable as purchases and payments were recorded in books. However, a 3% disallowance was considered fair due to the unverifiable nature of the suppliers.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on their merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly claimed exemption under Section 54 as a residential house property was transferred. However, the exemption under Section 54EC was denied due to delayed investment in NHAI bonds.

The Tribunal held that the issue was debatable at the time of penalty proceedings, and the assessee acted under a bonafide belief. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) under Section 273B was justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value before applying Section 43CA. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision allowing SAP implementation charges as revenue expenditure but reversed the decision allowing depreciation on it. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision allowing provisions for warranty and after-sales costs.