ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in denying registration. The genuineness of proposed activities and the use of funds for FDs are matters for assessment, not for registration stage. The CIT should have considered proposed activities as well.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to submit missing confirmations for unsecured loans. Regarding audit expenses, the tribunal found no reason for disallowance as provisions are typically made at year-end.

The Tribunal held that for expenses to be considered reimbursement, there must be a direct correlation between the outgo and inflow of identical amounts without any mark-up. For IT expenses, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove it was a pure reimbursement and remanded the issue for further examination.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal applications.

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 held that the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between production and electricity consumed, and made the addition on estimation without cogent reasons. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, a final opportunity should be given to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeal) for re-adjudication.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as the facts are identical to previous assessment years where the Tribunal had allowed the deduction. The Tribunal found no contrary orders from the High Court.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal applications.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal, and the Goetze (India) Ltd. judgment does not restrict the powers of appellate authorities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal applications.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal applications.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the requirement to quantify expenditure in Form 3CL was not applicable. Following its own precedents and other High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the weighted deduction as claimed.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Amendments regarding double deduction were held to be prospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19. It held that since the assessee has now amended the Trust Deed and provided the required details, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Amendments regarding double deduction were held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the requirement to quantify expenditure in Form 3CL was not applicable. Following its own precedents and other High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the weighted deduction as claimed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeals as they had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application was disapproved.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to their applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.