ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2022

The tribunal held that interest income received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following previous tribunal and High Court decisions.

The tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings under Section 147/148, finding no merit in the argument that Section 153C should have been invoked. However, it found merit in the plea that the authorities made double additions on both credit and debit sides, requiring verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted replies on the stipulated date, but the Pr.CIT passed the revision order without considering them. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Pr.CIT's order.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined evidence regarding whether proceedings under Section 201(1) were initiated against the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the sale of organic manure to members for better fodder production has a direct nexus with increasing dairy output. Following a liberal interpretation of Section 80P deduction as per Supreme Court rulings, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the assessee's claims without adjudicating on merits, despite the assessee not filing a revised return. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be given three effective opportunities to present their case.

The tribunal held that income derived from deposits in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction. It also ruled that transactions with nominal members do not disqualify the society from claiming deductions under Section 80P(2)(c).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought to withdraw the appeal as the issues were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not dispute this development.

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

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were insufficient. The mere fact of cash deposits in a bank account, without further indication of income escaping assessment, does not constitute valid grounds for reassessment.

The tribunal held that interest income received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following previous tribunal and High Court decisions. The statutory amendment effective from April 1, 2010, also supports this view.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for excess stock based on an alleged survey statement, citing CBDT circulars and a Supreme Court ruling. Additions for excess cash, cash deposits, and the loan account were confirmed at a reduced, estimated amount.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should re-adjudicate the sole substantive ground concerning the addition of capital gains. The assessee was directed to provide fresh contact details to the CIT(A).

The tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings under Section 147/148, finding no merit in the argument that Section 153C should have been invoked. However, it found merit in the plea that the authorities made double additions on both credit and debit sides, requiring verification.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit, the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal also noted that the revised limits were applicable to pending appeals and directed withdrawal of such appeals.

The Tribunal rejected the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) based on a Supreme Court ruling. The issue under Section 36(1)(iii) was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The short-term capital gain addition was rejected as not pressed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not adjudicate the substantive ground of interest disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate this specific grievance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were insufficient to establish that taxable income had escaped assessment, as they were solely for verification of expenditure.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The tribunal held that interest income received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following previous tribunal and High Court decisions. The statutory amendment effective from April 1, 2010, also supports this view.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the subsequent compliance. The Revenue did not dispute these facts.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The tribunal held that interest income received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following previous tribunal and High Court decisions. The statutory amendment effective from April 1, 2010, also supports this view.

The tribunal held that interest income received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following previous tribunal and High Court decisions. The statutory amendment effective from April 1, 2010, also supports this view.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme rendered the current penalty appeal infructuous. Without delving into the merits, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings under Section 147/148, finding no merit in the argument that Section 153C should have been invoked. However, it found merit in the plea that the authorities made double additions on both credit and debit sides, requiring verification.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings under Section 147/148, finding no merit in the argument that Section 153C should have been invoked. However, it found merit in the plea that the authorities made double additions on both credit and debit sides, requiring verification.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were insufficient. The mere fact of cash deposits in a bank account, without further indication of income escaping assessment, does not constitute valid grounds for reassessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the compliance thereof. The Revenue's representative did not dispute these facts.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument regarding the 'peak' of deposits and withdrawals. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for further examination, placing the onus on the taxpayer to provide all relevant details.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal and the revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were insufficient. The mere fact of cash deposits in a bank account, without further indication of income escaping assessment, does not constitute valid grounds for reassessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

The tribunal noted the assessee's application for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the subsequent compliance. The Departmental Representative did not dispute these facts.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E late fees could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as per amendments to Section 200A. Therefore, levies for periods prior to this date were illegal.

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