ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the salary disallowance, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and the authorities below made disallowances on presumption without contrary evidence. However, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to other expenses and loan processing charges, finding the authorities' view reasonable.

The Tribunal held that losses incurred prior to the initial assessment year opted by the assessee cannot be set off against the profits of eligible units for computing the deduction under Section 80IA. However, the factual aspect of whether the unabsorbed losses fell before or after the initial assessment year was not dealt with.

The Tribunal held that losses incurred prior to the initial assessment year opted by the assessee cannot be set off against the profits of eligible units for computing the deduction under Section 80IA. However, the factual aspect of whether the unabsorbed losses fell before or after the initial assessment year was not dealt with.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since there was uncertainty in recovering the principal and interest on the seed money advances, the interest could not be considered as accrued income. Therefore, it should not be brought to tax.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable with reference to concealment in the return of income. Since there was no variation between the returned income and the assessed income, no penalty could be levied.

The Tribunal held that the core issue of whether payments to non-residents constituted royalty, and thus required TDS deduction, was decided in favor of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal against the rectification order became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the write-off of obsolete stock related to the balance sheet date and should not be added. For the corporate guarantee issue, the matter was remitted to the AO/TPO for re-computation of the arm's length price.

The Tribunal held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10AA deduction. It also held that for Section 14A disallowance, the AO must record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 requires the Assessing Officer to have an independent 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, and cannot rely on 'borrowed satisfaction' from other agencies. Since no independent inquiry was conducted, the reopening was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot rely on 'borrowed satisfaction' from other agencies for reopening assessments. Independent application of mind and proper inquiry are mandatory prerequisites for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory limitation period and without any fresh material to form a belief of escapement of income. Additionally, the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure of issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C before passing the final order.

The Tribunal held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10AA deduction. It also held that for Section 14A disallowance, the AO must record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D.

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

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide necessary documentation, the revenue authorities also did not make sufficient efforts to determine the ALP. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal found merit in the arguments of the Revenue that the AO had not properly examined the issues selected for scrutiny. The subsequent disallowance made by the AO in compliance with the Pr. CIT's directions further supported this finding.

The Tribunal held that indexation benefits should be allowed from the date of acquisition by the first previous owner, not the immediate preceding owner, in cases of inheritance. The assessee's claim for indexation as on 01-04-1981 was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee invested the capital gains before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the royalty payment needed to be benchmarked separately and could not be aggregated with raw material purchase transactions. The issues related to transfer pricing adjustments for intra-group services and royalty were restored to the Assessing Officer/TPO for adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the admitted non-compliance with the notice but, considering the difficulties due to the Covid-19 pandemic, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal regarding the transfer pricing adjustment was partly allowed. While one ground of appeal was dismissed as not pressed, the Tribunal intended to examine the disputed comparable companies and other grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished 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 revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the Tribunal is Rs. 50.00 lakh, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Since the tax effect in these appeals was less than this limit, the appeals were not entertained.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the Tribunal is Rs. 50.00 lakh, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Since the tax effect in these appeals was less than this limit, the appeals were not entertained.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the Tribunal is Rs. 50.00 lakh, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Since the tax effect in these appeals was less than this limit, the appeals were not entertained.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the Tribunal is Rs. 50.00 lakh, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Since the tax effect in these appeals was less than this limit, the appeals were not entertained.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) for both assessment years, following its own previous decisions against the assessee. However, it deleted the disallowance under Section 43B for AY 2014-15, referencing a prior ruling in favour of the assessee on a similar issue.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) for both assessment years, following its own previous decisions against the assessee. However, it deleted the disallowance under Section 43B for AY 2014-15, referencing a prior ruling in favour of the assessee on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights in land. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that losses from earlier years cannot be set off against current year's income from the windmill unit if those losses relate to years prior to the initial year. It also held that under the mercantile system of accounting, the revised wage liability pertaining to the year under consideration is deductible even if paid later.

The Tribunal held that losses from prior years cannot be set off against current year's income for Section 80IA deduction. It also held that revised wages, being a liability pertaining to the year under consideration and the assessee following the mercantile system of accounting, are deductible.

The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to members and non-members is to be decided afresh by the AO, considering the Supreme Court's directions on profit distribution. The issue of concessional sugar sales to members was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. The VSI contribution was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for non-appearance before the AO, particularly noting that a return of income was filed. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

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 withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the receipt was neither a reimbursement nor software royalty. It concluded that the nature of services rendered was similar to those for which the assessee had already offered income to tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for non-appearance before the AO, particularly noting that a return of income was filed. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for non-appearance before the AO, particularly noting that a return of income was filed. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

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 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 withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all relevant information regarding partner changes and goodwill payment in its tax audit report (Form 3CD) and balance sheet. Since the reopening notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year and there was no failure to disclose, the reopening was held to be bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) incorrectly held that details were not submitted, as evidence on record indicated otherwise. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee already had registration under Section 12AA, with similar conditions to Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry and the assessee had provided detailed explanations. The revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not legally exercisable as none of the clauses under Explanation 2 were met.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits with relevant documentary evidence.