ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal held that the non-furnishing of documents before the Assessing Officer was a technical hitch as the TPO had accepted the ALP after examining the documents. Furthermore, the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the required documents, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did avail specific services and that the TPO's determination of nil ALP was incorrect. However, the Tribunal also found flaws in the assessee's benchmarking methods and the TPO's application of 'any other method'.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed if the income is disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee, even if it was surrendered under survey pressure. The concealment or inaccurate particulars must be evident from the return itself.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. No objection was raised by the revenue.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if tax was not paid or if the scheme application was disapproved.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the warranty policy terms and historical claim data while applying the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to reconcile the impounded material. Regarding the disallowance, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the AO to verify if the payee acknowledged the interest as income.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal on grounds of non-prosecution meant the merits were not decided. Therefore, a final opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) disposed of the appeal for non-appearance without deciding the issues on merits. Therefore, the assessee should be given a final opportunity to present its case.

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

The Tribunal set aside the AO's order for the transfer pricing addition, directing him to comply with the DRP's directions. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) by following its own earlier decisions in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication. A final opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case on merits before the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not have all the necessary evidence to decide the application. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to furnish the required details.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, such as a corrupted hard disk or the illness of the Chartered Accountant's wife, were not valid justifications for non-compliance. The assessee failed to provide evidence of steps taken to mitigate the delay or appoint alternative auditors.

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, such as a corrupted hard disk or the illness of the Chartered Accountant's wife, were not valid justifications for non-compliance. The assessee failed to provide evidence of steps taken to mitigate the delay or appoint alternative auditors.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, such as a corrupted hard disk or the illness of the Chartered Accountant's wife, were not valid justifications for non-compliance. The assessee failed to provide evidence of steps taken to mitigate the delay or appoint alternative auditors.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, such as a corrupted hard disk or the illness of the Chartered Accountant's wife, were not valid justifications for non-compliance. The assessee failed to provide evidence of steps taken to mitigate the delay or appoint alternative auditors.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should only examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities, not the application of income or tax liability at the registration stage. Issues regarding tax payment are to be dealt with during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that mere inability to substantiate a claim does not automatically warrant a penalty, especially in the absence of positive evidence of concealment. The penalty cannot be sustained solely on the ground that the assessee could not prove the services rendered by the commission agent.

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 not issued.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Tasgaon SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is to determine the profit component in the additional cane price paid under clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, which is not deductible, while the rest is deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Tasgaon SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is to determine the profit component in the additional cane price paid under clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, which is not deductible, while the rest is deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Tasgaon SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is to determine the profit component in the additional cane price paid under clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, which is not deductible, while the rest is deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Tasgaon SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is to determine the profit component in the additional cane price paid under clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, which is not deductible, while the rest is deductible expenditure.

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

The Tribunal held that a completion certificate is not a mandatory requirement for Section 54F exemption; investment within the stipulated period is sufficient. It also found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the investment details, thus the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were vitiated because the notices issued under Section 274 did not strike off the inapplicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the Tribunal deleted the penalties for both years.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were vitiated because the notice issued under Section 274 did not strike off the inapplicable limb of Section 271(1)(c), thus failing to specify the exact charge. Consequently, the penalties were deleted.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the relationship between the joint venture and its members was not that of a contractor and contractee, and income should be taxed in the hands of the members. Following its own previous decisions and the CBDT circular, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on 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 proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the order was passed before the due date for submission of details. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no 'transfer' of land, as defined under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, took place in the Assessment Year 2008-09. The reasoning was based on three key factors: (1) possession of the land was not given to the developer as an owner, but as a licensee; (2) a part of the land was vested in the Government of Maharashtra under the ULC Act at the material time; and (3) the transaction ultimately fell through. The Tribunal relied on the principle that if a transaction did not amount to a transfer, no capital gain could arise. Consequently, the additions made by the AO for AY 2008-09 were deleted. The Tribunal further clarified that capital gains would be chargeable to tax in the years when the actual transfers occurred. Specifically, the transfer of 80R land to Akash Erectors Pvt. Ltd. in 2010 would attract capital gains tax for AY 2011-12, and the remaining transfer in 2013 would attract capital gains tax for AY 2014-15. The AO was directed to compute these gains on a substantive basis, considering all amounts received and providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. The issue of taxability in the current year (AY 2008-09) was decided in favour of the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) is subject to Section 273B, which allows for reasonable cause. Since the revenue did not suffer any loss and the delay was due to procedural lapses and technical difficulties in e-filing, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was vitiated because it did not strike off the inapplicable limb ('concealed particulars of income' or 'furnished inaccurate particulars of income'). Following the Bombay High Court's judgment, the penalty order was deemed invalid.

The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and examined the details of members, including nominal members, submitted by the assessee. The information provided by the assessee matched the names identified by the PCIT, and no contrary evidence was produced by the revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to respond to the CIT's notice due to communication issues, and therefore, the matter should be remanded.

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

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department, which were enhanced to Rs. 50.00 lakh.