ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (prior to the Finance Act, 2021 amendment), if the employees' share of EPF and ESI was deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. However, a disallowance of Rs. 22,06,000/- made by the AO was deleted, while another disallowance of Rs. 2,07,620/- was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E read with Section 200A is automatic when there is a delay in filing the TDS statement. The TDS Officer has no discretion in not levying the late fee.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if prosecution was pending against the assessees, but otherwise, the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if prosecution was pending against the assessees, but otherwise, the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if prosecution was pending against the assessees, but otherwise, the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not maintainable as the information regarding hawala purchases came to the AO's notice through the Sales Tax/VAT Department, not from the assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case and lead fresh evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity and did not adjudicate the substantive grievances properly. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying addition/disallowance on which the penalty was based was deleted, the penalty had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The appeals were allowed based on this and the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had already reversed the CIT's revision directions, the penalties imposed had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if prosecution was pending against the assessees, but otherwise, the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to determine the profit component within the excess price paid to members and allow the remaining amount as deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt, dismissing the Revenue's grounds. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal regarding an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 22,06,000/- but dismissed the appeal concerning disallowances of Rs. 2,07,620/-.

The Tribunal upheld the additions for AY 2011-12, finding that the assessee failed to explain the sources of investments and expenditures based on loose documents found during search. For AY 2012-13, the penalty under Section 271AAA was upheld as the assessee did not substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction under Section 80P. It followed previous Pune ITAT decisions which, in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, favored the assessee by relying on the Karnataka High Court's view.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to determine the profit component within the excess price paid to members and allow the remaining amount as deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to determine the profit component within the excess price paid to members and allow the remaining amount as deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to determine the profit component within the excess price paid to members and allow the remaining amount as deductible expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the delay in conducting the audit and filing the report constituted a reasonable cause, considering the change of auditor and the resolution of objections. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B should not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which came after the Supreme Court's ruling, had already settled the law in favor of the assessee regarding the payment of milk rate difference. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings were upheld.

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in not considering the assessee's object clauses and passing an ex-parte order. The case was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was incorrect as the assessee was merely a facilitator and did not claim these payments as business expenses. The cash payments were made by the ultimate buyer company, not the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A was procedural and prospective. The delay in filing was also condoned.

The Tribunal held that since a co-ordinate bench had already reversed the CIT's revision directions, the penalties imposed had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if prosecution proceedings were pending against the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A empowering such levy was prospective. The CIT(A)'s dismissal on grounds of delay was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54F, following the Bombay High Court's decision where delays beyond the assessee's control due to litigation do not disentitle the claim.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had already reversed the CIT's revision directions, the penalties imposed had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had already reversed the CIT's revision directions, the penalties imposed had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had already reversed the CIT's revision directions, the penalties imposed had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal corrected its previous order to state that the appeals were 'partly allowed' for statistical purposes, rather than 'allowed'. This correction was made to reflect the intended decision.