ITAT Pune Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) despite multiple notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal has corrected a clerical error in the record regarding the Assessee's representative. This corrigendum does not alter the original decision of the tribunal on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's revised circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50.00 lakh. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, without going into the merits of the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on non-compete fees, distribution network rights, and customer lists, following its own precedent. It also directed to allow depreciation on goodwill, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The issue of depreciation on an additional Rs. 1 crore added to non-compete fees was remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying transfer pricing addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted, there was no justification for the penalty. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(Appeals) was upheld.

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 ends of justice would be met by setting aside the ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the unsold flats were stock-in-trade and occupied for the purpose of business, thus not chargeable to tax under 'Income from house property'. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income is earned.

The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the tribunal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

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

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had fulfilled the necessary conditions. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn since the assessee had no further grievance against the department after opting for the settlement scheme.

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 assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the tribunal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

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

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The respondent did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request. The respondent (DR) did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that an order passed by the ITSC is an 'other proceeding' under the Act, entitling the assessee to suo motu refund under Section 240. It further clarified that 'taxes already paid' includes TDS under Section 199, and thus, credit for TDS should be granted.

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

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

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

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for resolution under the Vivad Vishwas Act. 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 withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for resolution under the Vivad Vishwas Act. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee successfully resolved the tax demand under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessee's representative requested permission to withdraw all the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw all the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessee's representative requested permission to withdraw all the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The assessee's representative requested permission to withdraw all the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that the amount received from Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. is not chargeable to tax under Article 12 of the DTAA, following its previous orders. For other affiliates, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw both appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the absence of objections from the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw both appeals. This was based on the assessee's participation in the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the absence of objections from the revenue.

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