ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal held that once income is offered in a return, it cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The AO's action of treating the offered income as unexplained was not justified.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the deduction for employees' share of EPF and ESI contributions is allowable if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 8,50,000 as unexplained investment due to the lack of satisfactory explanation and incorrect books of accounts. The addition of Rs. 19 lakhs was also sustained for failing to substantiate the creditworthiness of the loan from the wife.

The Tribunal held that once income is offered in a return, it cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The AO's action of treating the offered income as unexplained was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT noted that the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal is Rs. 50.00 lakh and this limit is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not entertained.

The Tribunal held that a certificate in the prescribed form is mandatory for claiming relief under the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). For interest on capital work-in-progress, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order was not justified as the assessment order recorded satisfaction only for furnishing inaccurate particulars, not for concealment of income. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the penalty was also not justified.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and did not substantially deal with the rights and liabilities of the parties. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a bank and no personal expenses should arise. Considering the difficulty in obtaining vouchers for petty expenses across 220 branches, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to Rs. 50,000, as admitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a bank and no personal expenses should arise. Considering the difficulty in obtaining vouchers for petty expenses across 220 branches, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to Rs. 50,000, as admitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if there was a violation of a specific provision, only the deduction pertaining to that violation should be disallowed. The CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction, aligning with High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that if there was a violation of a specific provision, only the deduction pertaining to that violation should be disallowed. The CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction, aligning with High Court judgments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned by the co-operative society from bank deposits, following previous ITAT precedents.

The tribunal dismissed the claim for extraordinary expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. However, it held that foreign exchange gain/loss should be considered operating revenue for ALP determination and allowed the use of RPM for trading segments, excluding manufacturing value.

The Tribunal held that if there was a violation of a specific provision, only the deduction pertaining to that violation should be disallowed. The CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction, aligning with High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that if there was a violation of a specific provision, only the deduction pertaining to that violation should be disallowed. The CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction, aligning with High Court judgments.

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

The Tribunal held that the transaction was undertaken for business considerations and not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The appeal concerning the disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was undertaken for business considerations and not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The appeal concerning the disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was undertaken for business considerations and not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The appeal concerning the disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was undertaken for business considerations and not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The appeal concerning the disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that registration under the Motor Vehicles Act is not conclusive proof of ownership for depreciation purposes. The company's repayment of the loan and use of the car for business established its ownership, entitling it to depreciation and interest claims.

The Tribunal found it proper to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and applicability of a previous judgment. The disallowance made under Section 14A was to be re-adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the expression 'in any other case' in Section 244A(1)(b) implicitly included interest on self-assessment tax, even before its express inclusion by a later amendment. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to interest on self-assessment tax.

The Tribunal found it proper to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and applicability of a previous judgment. The disallowance made under Section 14A was to be re-adjudicated.

The Tribunal found it proper to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and applicability of a previous judgment. The disallowance made under Section 14A was to be re-adjudicated.

The Tribunal found it proper to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and applicability of a previous judgment. The disallowance made under Section 14A was to be re-adjudicated.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that it was not warranted when the assessment was completed based on the income declared, including the additional income offered during the survey, without any additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow credit for foreign tax. This was based on a previous Tribunal order for the same assessment year which allowed the foreign tax credit on interest income offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT initiated a 'fishing and roving inquiry' without sufficient material. The assessment order was passed after the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the facts and explanations provided by the assessee.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that no penalty is leviable when the AO accepts the return of income including the admitted additional income. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition for building fund contributions, holding them to be capital in nature. For other receipts, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to ascertain their true nature based on bye-laws and RBI guidelines.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow credit for foreign tax. This was based on a previous Tribunal order for the same assessment year which allowed the foreign tax credit on interest income offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue were not cumulatively satisfied. The issues raised, upon examination, did not result in a loss to the revenue or were otherwise tax-neutral.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance under Section 14A back to the Assessing Officer for verification of investments against interest-free funds. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of education cess paid by the assessee, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity to furnish details as requested by the PCIT. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a statement given during a survey operation without corroborative evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to bring on record specific instances of discrepancies or evidence of bogus expenditure.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 445 days, finding reasonable cause due to the wrong advice from the ITP. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify if a sum of Rs. 7.44 lakhs represented the share of profit from a partnership firm.

The Tribunal held that prior to the Finance Act, 2017 amendment, income from unsold flats held as stock-in-trade could not be taxed under 'Income from House Property'. Furthermore, there is no provision under 'Profits and Gains from business or profession' to deem rental income from unsold flats as business income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee possessed sufficient interest-free funds (shareholders' funds) which far exceeded the advance given to the sister concern. Following established precedents, the disallowance of interest was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. Following the precedents of various High Courts, the Tribunal decided that no disallowance was warranted in this case.

The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of an excess claim for deduction, without any finding of furnishing inaccurate particulars, does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The decision of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. was found applicable.

The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance to be ill-founded as it was based on incorrect vouchers. However, acknowledging some unverifiable expenses, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to Rs. 1.00 lakh.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) which far exceeded the investments made. Following precedents, the disallowance made under Rule 8D was deleted.