ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had obtained the necessary declarations and could not be treated as an assessee in default for the tax amount, the levy of interest under Section 206C(7) was not sustainable. Therefore, the interest demand was deleted.

The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were validly initiated. However, even if on-money was paid, the addition should be in the hands of the wife, not the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in segregating the transaction and that the assessee had indeed availed services. However, since no comparables were provided or considered for ALP determination, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity for hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that the non-disclosure of salary income was due to an oversight and not an intentional suppression of facts. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible units was rightly allowed by the CIT(A), as the Revenue did not dispute this principle. However, the assessee's appeal regarding warranty expenses was dismissed, and the issue of hawala bills was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy, granted to encourage industrial growth in less developed areas and linked to capital investment, is capital in nature. It also held that Section 28(iv) does not apply to monetary benefits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible units, as the Revenue did not dispute this principle. However, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding warranty expenses and allowed the appeal concerning hawala bills for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that adjustments should be made to the margins of comparables, not the assessee's margins, regarding customs duty. For technical services fees, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the TPO failed to follow prescribed methods for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP).

The Tribunal held that the amounts received and repaid were in the nature of advance for sale of land, not loans. Therefore, the transactions did not attract the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act.

The Tribunal held that in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeal filed by the Revenue, having a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, should be dismissed as not pressed or not maintainable. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable only on income added or disallowed by the AO, not on income voluntarily offered by the assessee in the return. The Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the revenue was distinguished on facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of valuing closing stock, which was consistently followed and accepted in previous years, was justified. The AO's alteration of the valuation method without a change by the assessee was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of training Indian residents to become skilled volunteers for NGOs and social work, including calamity relief and international exchange programs, constitute education under Section 2(15). Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 was rightly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 to prove the genuineness of the share capital. The lower authorities' findings against the assessee were upheld due to the intensive factual nature of the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received and repaid were in the nature of advance for sale of land, not loans. Therefore, the transactions did not attract the provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the development expenditure claimed, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the exemption under Section 10(38). The revision order by the CIT did not preclude a de-novo adjudication, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption based on the evidence.

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

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred for upgrading existing products to remain competitive and facilitate the existing business. No new asset was created, and the expenditure was revenue in nature.

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

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

The Tribunal held that a penalty notice under Section 274 which does not strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the entire penalty levied. This is based on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which were also upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal followed its own precedent for a similar issue in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal decided to delete the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years' cases decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years' cases decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years' cases decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years' cases decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years' cases decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years' cases decided by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that a penalty notice under Section 274 which does not strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the entire penalty levied. This is based on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which were also upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction and the receipt of cash advances. The genuineness of the MOU and cancellation deed was also doubted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own precedent that Sector 1 and Sector 7 were separate projects and the assessee was entitled to proportionate deduction for the completed portion of Sector 7.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years' cases decided by the Tribunal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to a consequential order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263. The Revenue conceded to this request.

The Tribunal restored the issue of proportionate interest expenditure disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's financial position and shareholder funds. The administrative expenditure disallowance was also to be recomputed based on dividend-yielding investments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee was entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for the Sector 7 project, as the facts were similar to previous years.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that DEPB entitlement, if not includible in export turnover, cannot be included in total turnover. The disallowance for foreign travel expenses was restricted to 5% based on the assessee's own case for the subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that an unsigned MOU cannot be treated as a binding agreement. It also noted that search statements alone, without corroborative material, do not hold significance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee and his two sons had offered 1/3rd of the capital gain each in their respective returns. It held that while taxing the entire gain in the assessee's hands was not justified, the ideal course would have been to tax it in the hands of the HUF. The Tribunal directed the AO to assess the capital gain at 1/3rd for the assessee and delete the rest of the addition.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,75,27,892/- as unexplained cash payments, noting that the seized documents carried a presumption of correctness and the assessee failed to reconcile the figures. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had obtained approval for non-deduction of TDS for a period, but the crushing season extended beyond that. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, considering the curative nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were unsustainable as they did not specify the relevant provision for TDS deduction. Consequently, the reassessments were quashed as non est.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were unsustainable as they did not specify the relevant provision for TDS deduction. Consequently, the reassessments were quashed as non est.