ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2021

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to filing an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not fully substantiate the genuineness of the loans before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to submit supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine, as the order passed pursuant to the grievance petition was a modification of an earlier order and could be considered an appealable order. The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without proper evidence from the assessee regarding TDS compliance, business use of assets, and genuineness of unsecured loans. The Tribunal found that crucial evidence was not presented before the AO.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to restore the appeal if the assessee fails to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted bona fide when making the donation as the organization was approved at the time of filing the return. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the grounds without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted bona fide when the donation was made, as the organization was approved at that time. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The ITAT held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case is contrary to law. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside an issue, but the Tribunal does. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the grounds of appeal back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination based on Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee can seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the excess sugarcane price was an appropriation of profit, as it could be due to business expediency like harvesting and transport costs. Similarly, the issue of concessional sugar sales required further examination.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the excess sugarcane price was an appropriation of profit, as it could be due to business expediency like harvesting and transport costs. Similarly, the issue of concessional sugar sales required further examination.

The Tribunal held that accrued interest on NPAs is not taxable on an accrual basis if there is uncertainty in realization, following the real income theory. The additions made by the AO were therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s duty under Section 12AA is to examine the charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of activities, not the utilization of surplus funds. The AO handles financial statement scrutiny during assessment proceedings. The finding regarding non-filing of returns was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred in denying registration based on taxability of donations, as assessment and registration are separate proceedings. The CIT should only examine the charitable nature of objects and genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that accrued interest on NPAs is not taxable on an accrual basis if there is uncertainty in realization, following the real income theory. The additions made by the AO were therefore not justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issue ex-parte without proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals based on the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement. The Revenue did not object, and the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, citing the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that royalty paid through the automatic route should be considered at ALP, but directed disallowance of duplicate brand royalty payments. It also ruled that royalty for technical know-how used in manufacturing is a business expense and not subject to disallowance under Section 37.

The Tribunal held that royalty paid through the automatic route should be considered at ALP, but directed the AO to disallow duplicate royalty payments. It also ruled that commission paid to overseas agents for business procured in overseas territories is not subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present additional evidence regarding the unsecured loans and expenses. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering these additional evidences.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had not conducted necessary inquiries into the allowance of profits from direct vendor sales. The Tribunal found that the issue of direct vendor sales was not part of the appeal before the CIT(A), thus the doctrine of merger did not apply.

The Tribunal remanded the transfer pricing issue to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication in line with earlier precedents. The Tribunal allowed the deduction for education cess as a business expenditure, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, enabling the levy of late filing fees, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge such fees.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, enabling the levy of late filing fees, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge such fees.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, enabling the levy of late filing fees, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge such fees.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of interest on Non-Performing Assets (NPA) for cooperative banks is covered by various High Court decisions, including the Bombay High Court in the case of Solapur District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. These decisions, supported by Supreme Court's dismissal of appeals, allow the claim of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on a different premise and did not arise from the assessment order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as per the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and its rules.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was previously quashed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the present appeal by the Revenue, which stems from the PCIT's order, also stands dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'relative' for Section 40A(2)(b) is governed by Section 2(41) of the Income-tax Act, not the broader definition in Section 56(2)(v). Only one transaction with the assessee's husband qualified as a transaction with a 'relative'.

The Tribunal held that since interest-free funds were available and exceeded the incremental advances made during the year, no disallowance of interest was warranted. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. However, it was clarified that if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeals.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. However, if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded all the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit further evidence.

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

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.