ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the appellant permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate is declined.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as a prerequisite for availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to estimate the assessee's income at 8% of turnover as per Section 44AD of the Act. The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s reasoning to be reasonable and in accordance with the law, considering the lack of audited accounts and the nature of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to estimate the assessee's income at 8% of turnover as per Section 44AD of the Act. The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s reasoning to be reasonable and in accordance with the law, considering the lack of audited accounts and the nature of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal held that leased line charges paid for transmission by any technology fall under the definition of 'Royalty' due to retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi). However, it also held that RSA tokens are revenue expenditure.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request. The Dispute Resolution Panel's directions were not adjudicated upon.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to estimate the assessee's income at 8% of turnover as per Section 44AD of the Act. The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s reasoning to be reasonable and in accordance with the law, considering the lack of audited accounts and the nature of the assessee's business.

The assessee requested to withdraw the grounds of appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn since the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that leased line charges paid for transmission by any technology fall under the definition of 'Royalty' due to retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi). However, it also held that RSA tokens are revenue expenditure.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the certificate under the scheme was declined.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received from 'B' class members do not constitute revenue receipts. This decision was based on the principle that such fees are capital in nature and not taxable as income.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received from 'B' class members do not constitute revenue receipts. This decision was based on the principle that such fees are capital in nature and not taxable as income.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received from 'B' class members do not constitute revenue receipts. This decision was based on the principle that such fees are capital in nature and not taxable as income.

The Tribunal held that membership fees received from 'B' class members do not constitute revenue receipts. This decision was based on the principle that such fees are capital in nature and not taxable as income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to estimate the assessee's income at 8% of turnover as per Section 44AD of the Act. The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s reasoning to be reasonable and in accordance with the law, considering the lack of audited accounts and the nature of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal held that the sale of software licenses, whether directly to end-users or through distributors and resellers, constituted business income and not royalty. This was based on the principle that the assessee was selling a copyrighted article, not transferring the copyright itself.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision for the assessment year 2014-15, which had similar facts. It overturned the Assessing Officer's orders and directed the deletion of additions made by treating software sales revenue as Royalty income.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision for the assessment year 2014-15, which had similar facts. It overturned the Assessing Officer's orders and directed the deletion of additions made by treating software sales revenue as Royalty income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied due diligence and made inquiries before passing the assessment order. The revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the reassessment proceedings were based on specific reasons, and the Commissioner sought to bring in other issues not part of the original reopening notice.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals with liberty to revive them if the VSV resolution failed. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing. The appeal was decided on merits based on the submissions of the Revenue. The CIT(Exemption) had rejected the exemption claim.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals with liberty to revive them if the VSV resolution failed. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals with liberty to revive them if the VSV resolution failed. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals with liberty to revive them if the VSV resolution failed. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was given a short opportunity to comply with the directions regarding the trust deed amendments. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeals with liberty to revive them if the VSV resolution failed. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance by the assessee was not deliberate and was due to circumstances beyond their control, particularly the pandemic. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside to provide the assessee with a final opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that religious activities are considered charitable and mixed objects do not disentitle a trust from registration. It also clarified that the proviso to Section 2(15) and investment of surplus funds are matters for exemption assessment, not for denial of registration.

The Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption), granting the assessee one final opportunity to furnish the required documents and comply with the provisions of law.

The Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption), granting the assessee one final opportunity to furnish the required documents and comply with the provisions of law.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of the India-Portuguese DTAA could be extended to the India-Sweden DTAA due to the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause. It further found that the training services did not make available technical knowledge and thus did not fall under FTS. However, the Tribunal noted that the taxability under Article 7 (Business Profits) was not examined by the AO, but since the AO accepted the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the income would not be taxable as business profits.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s approach of dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits was unreasonable and unjustified. The tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s finding.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding tanker expenses, directing deletion of the addition as the profit margin was considered reasonable. However, the addition on account of capital introduction was upheld due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the claim.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settlement. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT's concern about taxes on donations is premature and should be addressed during assessment proceedings. The genuineness of activities and charitable nature of objects were not disputed by the department.

The Tribunal held that the right to collect fees for operating the bus terminal on a BOT basis constitutes a business or commercial right, qualifying as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on this intangible asset.

The Tribunal held that the right to collect fees for operating the bus terminal on a BOT basis constitutes a business or commercial right, qualifying as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on this intangible asset.

The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal held that the right to collect fees for operating the bus terminal on a BOT basis constitutes a business or commercial right, qualifying as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on this intangible asset.