ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the agricultural activity and the possibility of advances received in land transactions being refunded. However, due to lack of substantiation regarding refunds, the addition was restricted to 50% of the disallowed amount.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not maintainable as the related income was voluntarily offered to tax by the flagship company of the group before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on a report that excluded other group companies to be without substance.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not maintainable as the related income was voluntarily offered to tax by the flagship company of the group before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on a report that excluded other group companies to be without substance.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not maintainable as the related income was voluntarily offered to tax by the flagship company of the group before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on a report that excluded other group companies to be without substance.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed orders without granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not maintainable as the related income was voluntarily offered to tax by the flagship company of the group before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on a report that excluded other group companies to be without substance.

The tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy is only applicable for defaults committed after this date.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revisionary order, finding that the Assessing Officer's assessment suffered from a lack of necessary inquiries. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order might have been passed without proper notice to the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh decision.

The assessee requested to withdraw all the appeals in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw all the appeals due to the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that without a registered sale deed, no transfer of immovable property occurred in FY 2011-12. Therefore, the sale consideration is includible in the assessee firm's income for the year in which the registered sale deed was executed.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to add the difference between the previous year's rent and the declared rent, considering the relationship between the assessee and his daughter as a reason for the disproportionate rent. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this disparity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report, supported by documentary evidence like a doctor's certificate. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the administrative service charges paid by the assessee were allowable as business expenditure, following its own previous decisions and the High Court's ruling. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to decide the excess cane price issue considering the Supreme Court's ruling on profit distribution and deductible expenditure, and the concessional sale of sugar issue based on the Supreme Court's directions regarding appropriation of profit.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Act is not applicable in the absence of any exempt income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The assessee requested to withdraw all the appeals due to the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that it is unreasonable to disallow the entire expenditure claimed against hire charges, as some expenditure is necessarily incurred. The lack of evidence does not mean no expenditure was incurred, especially when books of accounts are not mandatory.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the assessee had settled their tax liability under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not adjudicated on merits due to the assessee's absence. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendments to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendments to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the administrative service charges paid by the assessee were allowable as business expenditure, following its own previous decisions and the High Court's ruling. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the conclusion that the consequential assessment order was infructuous, null, and void due to the quashing of the Section 263 order.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order which relied on a Supreme Court judgment, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO needs to determine if the concessional sale is an appropriation of profit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the issue, particularly regarding service of hearing notices and adjudication as per Section 250(6). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amendment through the Finance Act, 2021, which made the provisions of Section 43B applicable to Section 36(1)(va) for determining the due date, was not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19. Since the assessee deposited the employee contributions before the due date for filing the return of income, no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendments to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not dispute this development.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendments to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 40A(3) was justified as the assessee provided Gram Panchayat certificates proving payments were made in unbanked villages, satisfying Rule 6DD(g). The revisionary order on customer advances was time-barred as it pertained to the original assessment order, not the re-assessment.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the expenses were paid through cheques for business purposes and no personal gain was indicated, the assessee was entitled to claim them as deductions. The CIT(A)'s order was found not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, levying late fees, and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, have prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was invalid.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which imposes late fees, and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, both have prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying these fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that since the co-ordinate bench had already deleted the disallowance of the Section 54F deduction, the penalty imposed as a consequence had no basis to stand. Therefore, the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the conclusion that the consequential assessment order was infructuous, null, and void due to the quashing of the Section 263 order.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. However, the issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. However, the issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. However, the issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. However, the issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. However, the issues raised were left open for future examination.