ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was in conformity with the Tribunal's previous order. Since the assessee did not challenge the Tribunal's order directly, the AO's action was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271D. The CIT(A)'s findings, based on seized material, were not controverted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the land sold was a capital asset or agricultural land needed to be decided afresh. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on this specific ground after allowing the assessee to file necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of adequate opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that software license fees are not 'Royalty' under the DTAA. Consequently, software maintenance, consulting, and training fees, being incidental to the license, are also not 'Fees for Technical Services'.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank is indeed a cooperative society and that interest income derived from investments with another cooperative society is exempt under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the denial of exemption by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, it was ruled that if employees' contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appeal proceedings were conducted ex parte. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank is indeed a cooperative society and that interest income derived from investments in another cooperative society is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the denial of exemption by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that it is bound to follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Since the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Vs. ITO held that exemption under Section 54 cannot be claimed if the new property is purchased in the name of someone else, the assessee is disentitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not warranted as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the payment to co-owners was unrelated to the transferred property and thus not deductible. It also ruled that the purchased 'office premises' did not qualify as a 'residential house' for Section 54F exemption.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative bank is indeed a cooperative society and that interest income derived from investments with another cooperative society is exempt under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the denial of exemption by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appeal proceedings were conducted ex parte. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, following its decision for the previous assessment year, allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The deduction under Section 80IC was to be allowed on the profits generated by the eligible unit.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(8) applies to the transfer of goods or services between eligible and non-eligible businesses. The AO correctly invoked the first situation of Section 80IA(8) by determining the market value of CD writing activity.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(8) applies to the transfer of goods or services between eligible and non-eligible businesses. The AO correctly invoked the first situation of Section 80IA(8) by determining the market value of CD writing activity.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(8) applies to the transfer of goods or services between eligible and non-eligible businesses. The AO correctly invoked the first situation of Section 80IA(8) by determining the market value of CD writing activity.

The Tribunal, following its decision for the previous assessment year, allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The deduction under Section 80IC was to be allowed on the profits generated by the eligible unit.

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

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not spent any money on its stated objects despite substantial income and existence for over a decade. However, the CIT(E) had not properly examined whether the objects themselves were charitable as per Section 2(15). Therefore, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision which, in turn, relied on a Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court had remanded the issue of excess sugarcane price to the AO for determining the profit component. Similarly, the issue of concessional sugar sales was also remanded.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to comment or calling for a remand report. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for sundry creditors without proper examination and confirmed the addition. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of provision for warranty to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of Supreme Court judgment.

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

The Tribunal noted that the issue pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14, but the sale deed and the capital gain taxation were for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue's appeal was therefore misplaced.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for sundry creditors without proper examination and confirmed the addition. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of provision for warranty to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that provisions for obsolete stock are allowable in principle but require valuation at the lower of cost or market price. The issue of warranty provision was remanded back to the AO for re-evaluation. The Tribunal also allowed a claim related to deferred sales tax.

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

The Tribunal held that provisions for obsolete stock are allowable in principle but require valuation at the lower of cost or market price. The issue of warranty provision was remanded back to the AO for re-evaluation. The Tribunal also allowed a claim related to deferred sales tax.

The Tribunal held that non-furnishing of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings, despite requests, is a jurisdictional lapse. Consequently, the reassessment order is quashed.

The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing sales in the case of a trader. For Section 14A, the issue was set aside to the AO for de-novo verification. The Tribunal also noted that grounds 1, 2, 4, and 6 were not pressed by the assessee.

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

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not have sufficient details to disallow the MCP and EDP provisions. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, involving finance, technical expertise, and risk, qualified it as a developer eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). This decision followed a consistent line of rulings in the assessee's own cases.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied the right to cross-examine the witness. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the land was used for agricultural purposes, evidenced by trees and cultivation, fulfilling the conditions for Section 54B deduction. Regarding the cost of improvement, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to dispose of the issue afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal was Rs. 50.00 lakh. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the appeal.

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

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated merely on a change of opinion by the AO, as all relevant facts were within his knowledge during the original assessment. Therefore, the notice under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were set aside as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, involving finance, technical expertise, and risk, qualified it as a developer eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). This decision followed a consistent line of rulings in the assessee's own cases.