ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Subsequently, the assessee requested to withdraw all appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals considering the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee then requested to withdraw all three appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals considering the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee then requested to withdraw all three appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that since the AO, in effect, allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4) on the income from bogus purchases, the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars related to those purchases does not survive. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that working at 20% capacity clearly indicates that the assets were put to use, and the absence of outstanding capital in work-in-progress further supports this. Therefore, the disallowance of interest and depreciation was not justified.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by the Tribunal itself, the foundation for imposing the penalty ceased to exist. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue failed due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, with liberty to revive them if tax is not paid under the VSV scheme. The Revenue can also apply to restore the appeals if the VSV application is disapproved.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remitted the matter to the AO. This was because the sale bills impounded by the AO were not released to the assessee, preventing them from presenting their case effectively.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by the Tribunal itself, the foundation for imposing the penalty ceased to exist. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the annual value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder cannot be assessed as income from house property. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously remitted a similar issue for reconsideration based on specific factors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's directions.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was time-barred due to pre-dating and the actual order being passed after the limitation period. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue challenging the CIT(A)'s order on the Section 10A claim became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 271FA is not maintainable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as Section 271FA is not listed in Section 253 of the Act, which specifies appealable orders.

The Tribunal held that the annual value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade cannot be assessed as income from house property. Following its own previous decisions and noting the differing High Court opinions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis of presumption or surmises, especially when self-made vouchers are a trade practice and no material suggested the expenditure was bogus. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that the annual value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade cannot be assessed as income from house property. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT was not justified in exercising revisional power under Section 263 as the issue was debatable. The AO's view allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income from other cooperative societies was a possible view, especially in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling to the contrary.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding no mala-fides or dilatory tactics by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even in the absence of representation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was time-barred due to pre-dating and the actual order being passed after the limitation period. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue challenging the CIT(A)'s order on the Section 10A claim became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of grant-in-aid from turnover to fall below the threshold for mandatory audit was not valid. The penalty under Section 271B was upheld for failure to comply with the audit requirement.

The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with the liberty to revive the proceedings if the Vivad se Vishwas certificate is not issued.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of grant-in-aid from turnover to fall below the threshold for mandatory audit was not valid. The penalty under Section 271B was upheld for failure to comply with the audit requirement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of grant-in-aid from turnover to fall below the threshold for mandatory audit was not valid. The penalty under Section 271B was upheld for failure to comply with the audit requirement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of grant-in-aid from turnover to fall below the threshold for mandatory audit was not valid. The penalty under Section 271B was upheld for failure to comply with the audit requirement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of grant-in-aid from turnover to fall below the threshold for mandatory audit was not valid. The penalty under Section 271B was upheld for failure to comply with the audit requirement.

The Tribunal permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to revive the appeal if tax is not paid or if the scheme application is disapproved by the department.

The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with the liberty to revive the proceedings if the Vivad se Vishwas certificate is not issued.

The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted with the liberty to revive the proceedings if the Vivad se Vishwas certificate is not issued.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if tax was not paid or if the scheme application was disapproved.

The Tribunal found that the cash deposit figure of Rs. 26.76 lakh was erroneous, and the actual cash deposits were Rs. 3,10,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. The AO's addition of Rs. 2.00 lakh was justified based on the available information.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the exclusion of grant-in-aid from turnover to fall below the threshold for mandatory audit was not valid. The penalty under Section 271B was upheld for failure to comply with the audit requirement.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was vitiated because it did not strike off the inapplicable limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following the Bombay High Court's judgment, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was vitiated because it did not strike off the inapplicable limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following its own prior decisions and those of other benches. It held that the right to collect toll, being an intangible asset, is eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that since the expenditure incurred in cash formed part of the closing stock and was not claimed as a deduction, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act did not arise. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following its own prior decisions and those of other benches. It held that the right to collect toll, being an intangible asset, is eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following its own prior decisions and those of other benches. It held that the right to collect toll, being an intangible asset, is eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not warranted on a debatable issue regarding the interpretation of whether the land is a capital asset or agricultural land. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned a 5-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's readiness to provide explanations and evidence, and the lack of objection from the revenue, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the subsequent order by the AO resolved the issue. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

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

The Tribunal noted that in similar past cases, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted when the income was offered voluntarily to buy peace and no addition was made in assessment. Following this precedent, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that in similar past cases, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted when the income was offered voluntarily to buy peace and no addition was made in assessment. Following this precedent, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the registration application based on the assumption of non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes, as these issues are separate from the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed returns and paid taxes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vitiated because it did not strike off the irrelevant limb of the charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following the Bombay High Court's Full Bench decision, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.