ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- as undisclosed income. It reasoned that Section 292C of the Income Tax Act creates a presumption that documents found during a search belong to the assessee and their contents are true, placing the onus on the assessee to rebut this presumption.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of administrative service charges back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessee filing recipient's tax returns and an addendum to the service agreement for the first time, requiring factual verification.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of administrative service charges back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessee filing recipient's tax returns and an addendum to the service agreement for the first time, requiring factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the issue afresh after awaiting the final outcome of the assessee's former application for 12A registration. The assessee is entitled to benefits if its objects and activities remained the same.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the issue afresh after awaiting the final outcome of the assessee's former application for 12A registration. The assessee is entitled to benefits if its objects and activities remained the same.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the issue afresh after awaiting the final outcome of the assessee's former application for 12A registration. The assessee is entitled to benefits if its objects and activities remained the same.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the assessee's contention. The AO was instructed to give effect to the CIT(A)'s order expeditiously and in compliance with natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the claim that goods were received before the survey date but invoices were received later. The initial admission of excess stock was not adequately rebutted.

The Tribunal held that the claim for Section 80IB(10) deduction was not allowable as it was not made in the return of income filed within the due date, as mandated by Section 80A(5) read with Section 80C. The Tribunal also rejected the alternative plea of treating the income as capital gains, as the assessee had consistently treated it as business income.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of sales and marketing expenses as freebies to doctors, citing Supreme Court and CBDT circulars. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the assessee did not derive any exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make necessary inquiries regarding the agricultural income, as the 7/12 extracts did not support the cultivation of all claimed crops. This lack of inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the source of the loans was clearly established as the lenders had sold raw cotton and received payments through banking channels. The subsequent withdrawal and redeposit of funds before lending to the assessee demonstrated a clear trail of transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not fully discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing all required confirmations. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not erred in making the addition, considering the circumstances.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the reassessment was based solely on an audit objection, finding the AO applied independent mind. However, it restored the issue of the transfer date of the capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to the non-production of a crucial assignment deed.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the issue afresh after awaiting the final outcome of the assessee's former application for 12A registration. The assessee is entitled to benefits if its objects and activities remained the same.

The tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the opening cash balance and advances against flat bookings, finding the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions. The ground regarding the sale of a car was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of administrative service charges back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessee filing recipient's tax returns and an addendum to the service agreement for the first time, requiring factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of late deposit of employees' share of EPF & ESI is not warranted if the deposit is made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). This is in line with the Bombay High Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

The Tribunal noted the significant delay by the CIT(Appeals) in disposing of the appeal. Considering the assessee's claim of having evidence for the source of deposits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the deemed dividend should be calculated based on the opening balance of accumulated profits, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the payee's tax payment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed. This was primarily because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, a majority of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that since the amount was received from a trustee specifically for the building fund and was taken directly to the balance sheet, it constituted a corpus donation and was not chargeable to tax.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC is correctly restricted to the gross total income as per Section 80A(2). Furthermore, it ruled that Section 80IC deductions are not permissible in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB, citing High Court judgments.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings, finding that the reopening was based on tangible material found during the search and the assessee's statement, which was not rebutted. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for parity with other assessment years due to lack of evidence of similar examination of material.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not pertain to the relevant assessment year (AY 2008-09) or the corresponding financial year. The reopening was quashed on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening proceedings, finding that the reopening was based on tangible material found during the search and the assessee's statement, which was not rebutted. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for parity with other assessment years due to lack of evidence of similar examination of material.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid for extra commercial considerations, routed through journal entries to create an artificial loss, cannot be allowed as a deduction. However, the calculation of the disallowance was revised.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC must be restricted to the gross total income as per Section 80A(2). It further held that Section 80IC deductions are not available in the computation of book profit under Section 115JB, citing various High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption under Section 54 as the new property was not purchased in his own name. The decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that such purchases disentitle the assessee to the exemption.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the Section 80IB(10) deduction claim. It was held that filing the return within the due date is a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VIA, citing relevant case law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's show cause notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, this failure was deemed fatal to the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction in principle but directed the AO to expeditiously implement the order, considering additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding investments and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7.25 crores as unexplained investment, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash payment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification regarding unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was not sustainable as it travelled beyond the show cause notice and lacked definite findings. The Pr. CIT directed a de novo assessment without properly establishing why the AO's order was erroneous.