ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CUP method was not appropriate due to a lack of sufficient comparability and geographical differences. However, it directed that any transfer pricing adjustment under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) should be restricted only to the international transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50.00 lakh. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not entertained.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2014-15, retention money was not taxable based on the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee and the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to exclude the retention money, subject to verification, was sustained.

The Tribunal noted that a common order for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 had already been passed, where the issue raised by the Revenue was sent back to the file of the CIT(A). Therefore, the current appeal also needed to be remitted to the CIT(A) for decision in conformity with the Tribunal's view.

The Tribunal held that for Section 263 revision to be valid, the AO's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since the assessee argued the order was not prejudicial, the matter was remanded to the PCIT to ascertain this fact.

The Tribunal held that when bogus purchases are consumed, the addition should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire amount. Following jurisdictional High Court precedent, 10% of bogus purchases was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the loss incurred by the assessee in funding Alliance Agro was a genuine business loss. The Tribunal was satisfied that the CIT(A) had taken an unexceptionable view in allowing the deduction, affirming the lower appellate authority's order.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on gross total income, not just business income, following the Bombay High Court's decisions. The restriction imposed by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on gross total income, not just business income. This was based on the Bombay High Court's decisions in CIT vs. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd. and V M Salgaocar & Brothers (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that while the AO may not have the power to entertain such a claim, the Tribunal under Section 254 has the power to grant relief. The matter was set aside to the AO for examination on merits.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on gross total income, not just business income, following the Bombay High Court's decisions. The restriction imposed by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on the gross total income, not just the income from the eligible business. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on the gross total income, not just the income from the eligible business. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on the gross total income, not just the income from the eligible business. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court.

The tribunal found that the rights and liabilities of the parties were not adjudicated upon on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee to represent their case.

The Tribunal found that the rights and liabilities of the parties were not adjudicated on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, a final opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to present their case with documentary evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that an ad hoc addition for bogus purchases is not warranted. The addition should be the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine purchases and hawala purchases, applied to the hawala purchase amount.

The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned ex parte orders. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh orders after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was primarily to consider a recent Tribunal order that established a mechanism for computing income in HUFs, which would impact the assessee's individual income.

The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned ex parte orders. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh orders after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned ex parte orders. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh orders after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned ex parte orders. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh orders after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with all relevant documentary evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on the gross total income, not just the income from the eligible business. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was primarily to consider a recent Tribunal order that established a mechanism for computing income in HUFs, which would impact the assessee's individual income.

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

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with relevant evidence to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on the gross total income, not just the income from the eligible business. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed on the gross total income, not restricted to the income from eligible business alone. This decision was based on precedents from the Bombay High Court.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

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

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the Principal Commissioner had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Revenue had no objection.