ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2021

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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, and the revenue had no objection. The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, and the revenue had no objection. The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, and the revenue had no objection. The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

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

The Tribunal held that the subsidies were capital in nature, intended to accelerate industrial development, and thus not revenue receipts. It also ruled that these subsidies should not be reduced from the cost of the respective block of assets.

The Tribunal held that the subsidies were capital in nature, intended to accelerate industrial development, and thus not revenue receipts. It also ruled that these subsidies should not be reduced from the cost of the respective block of assets.

The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claims led to an erroneous order prejudicial to revenue. The CIT's assertion that the AO had not verified issues was insufficient to invoke Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order lacked cogent reasons and failed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) is a quasi-judicial authority and must provide reasoned orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a proportionate deduction on profits from eligible units that comply with Section 80IB(10), following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the impact of the national lockdown. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 525 days, considering the possibility of non-service of orders due to an address change. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the land was held as an investment, not stock-in-trade, and the profit should be treated as capital gains. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s view that the corporate box allotment was part of the sale consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to suppliers is to be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions. The VSI contribution was decided in favor of the assessee. The disallowance for the Chief Minister Relief Fund was also remanded to the AO for adjudication as per law.

The Tribunal held that certain grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) remained un-adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of these specific grounds.

The Tribunal held that certain grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) remained un-adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of these specific grounds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient reasoning for deleting the disallowance. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' in Section 206C implies it must be from manufacturing. Since the applicability of Section 206C was not fully examined by the AO, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' in Section 206C implies it must be from manufacturing. Since the applicability of Section 206C was not fully examined by the AO, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not accept the surrender of 'on-money' as income and then deny deduction on the same grounds. The 'on-money' received from flat bookings was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeal) had not adjudicated the merits of the penalty levied. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeal) to decide the penalty issue on merits.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for earlier assessment years was remanded to the AO for verification. Following the precedent, the Tribunal also remanded the matter to the AO to decide the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) in conformity with the directions given in earlier years.

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 the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals and the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals 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 the revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as having been withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeal) had not adjudicated the merits of the penalty levied. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeal) to decide the penalty issue on merits after the assessee rectifies the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for earlier assessment years was remanded to the AO for verification. Following the precedent, the Tribunal also remanded the matter to the AO to decide the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) in conformity with the directions given in earlier years.

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 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 held that the CIT(Appeal) had not adjudicated the penalty issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeal) to decide the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) on merits.