ITAT Pune Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal allowed the claim for education cess and depreciation on capital expenditures, following its own precedents and High Court decisions. It also partly allowed the disallowance under Section 14A, sustaining only a portion of the administrative expenses.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for education cess and depreciation on capital expenditures, following its own precedents and High Court decisions. It also partly allowed the disallowance under Section 14A, sustaining only a portion of the administrative expenses.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in applying the definitions from Rule 10TA for determining ALP under TNMM as safe harbour rules were optional and not exercised by the assessee. The disallowance for late PF deposit was deleted, but the matter of intra-group services was remitted for fresh determination, and the gratuity/superannuation fund contributions were to be decided based on future CIT approval.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in one appeal due to the issue being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. All parties wished to withdraw their appeals as they had applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in one appeal due to the issue being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. All parties wished to withdraw their appeals, which was permitted.

The tribunal granted the appellant permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate is not issued.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in one appeal due to the issue being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. All parties wished to withdraw their appeals under the same scheme.

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

The tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the issues were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Revenue had no objection.

The tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. However, if the scheme application is disapproved, the assessee can apply to restore the appeal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to these withdrawals.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the submission that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals as per the latest CBDT circular.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

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

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

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The tribunal noted that both the assessees and the Revenue wished to withdraw their appeals as they had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) do not require ownership of premises or audited accounts. The CIT(Exemption) cannot introduce conditions not prescribed by law.

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 held that the revenue failed to prove the existence of an international transaction for A&M expenses between the assessee and its foreign AE. It further held that in the absence of specific machinery provisions to compute arm's length price for such expenditure, transfer pricing provisions cannot be invoked. The Tribunal also noted that the bright line test is not applicable.

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

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