ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessment was deleted in the quantum appeal, and therefore, no penalty can be levied. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer did not provide specific findings on how inaccurate particulars were furnished.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex parte order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. However, if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional on the Vivad Se Vishwas application being disapproved by the department, in which case the appeals can be restored.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional on the Vivad Se Vishwas application being disapproved by the department, in which case the appeals can be restored.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is for the assessee to decide if a debt has become bad, and no further proof is required if it is written off as such in the books. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional on the Vivad Se Vishwas application being disapproved by the department, in which case the appeals can be restored.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was disapproved by the respondent.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. However, if the Vivad se Vishwas application is disapproved, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee can restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional, allowing restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved.

The Tribunal held that the amount was an advance for a land sale, not a loan or deposit, and thus not covered by Section 269SS. The penalty was imposed based on suspicion without proper inquiry.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional on the Vivad Se Vishwas application being disapproved by the department, in which case the appeals can be restored.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional on the Vivad Se Vishwas application being disapproved by the department, in which case the appeals can be restored.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal is conditional on the Vivad Se Vishwas application being disapproved by the department, in which case the appeals can be restored.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) should not be denied to the donor merely because the approval granted to the donee organization was withdrawn subsequently. The insertion of Explanation to Section 35(1)(ii) clarifies this legislative intent.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the area of land for road widening should be considered part of the project land for eligibility under Section 80IB(10). It also emphasized that revenue record entries do not create or extinguish title.

The Tribunal followed a previous order in a similar case involving a co-purchaser. It was held that the issue of property ownership by HUF and subsequent profits needed further deliberation by the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex parte order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to frame the assessment afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex parte order without going into the merits. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned ex parte order. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to frame the assessment afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s order was not a speaking order and lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The respondent (Revenue) did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal also noted that similar appeals based on hawala transaction information had been dismissed previously.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal as the respondent had no objection.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal also noted that similar appeals based on hawala transaction information had been dismissed previously.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of omitted purchase bills was not credible as it was made after the survey and the bills were for small amounts, deviating from regular purchases. However, the addition was reduced because the stock was valued at market rate instead of the cost price used by the assessee.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The respondent (Revenue) did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'Thirdware Solutions Limited' from the list of comparable companies and also ruled that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to transactions with Associated Enterprises only.

The Tribunal held that the classification of certain income items as operating or non-operating requires further examination by the AO/TPO. It also ruled that transfer pricing adjustments can only be made for AE transactions, not entity-level transactions, citing a High Court judgment.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Jindal Intellicom Private Limited should be included as a comparable company, as it was functionally similar and had been accepted in previous assessment years. However, Ninestars Information Technologies Limited was excluded due to functional dissimilarity and lack of reliable segmental information.

The Tribunal held that CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. was not a comparable company for the assessee's capacitor manufacturing segment and directed its exclusion. It also held that cross-charged expenses for leased line charges were not royalty and thus no TDS was required, deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order concerning the ALP determination in the three segments of the assessee's services. The matter was remitted back to the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of ALP, considering the observations made regarding comparability of companies and adjustments.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order concerning the ALP determination in the three segments of the assessee's services. The matter was remitted back to the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of ALP, considering the observations made regarding comparability of companies and adjustments.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.