ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The amendment to Section 80P(4) does not disallow this deduction for the investing cooperative society.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following a coordinate bench's precedent. The appeal was considered below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular for filing appeals, and the exception clause regarding external agency information was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the view of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts, preferring the assessee-favorable interpretation in case of conflicting judgments.

The Tribunal held that the benefit test applied by the TPO was incorrect and that the assessee had proven the receipt of intra-group services. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of ALP.

The tribunal held that a disallowance made on an ad-hoc basis does not automatically attract a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The imposition of penalty was found to be erroneous in the given facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was correctly made. Regarding the carry forward of losses under Section 10(38), the Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision which disallowed such carry forward.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly frame points of determination and adjudicate the issues as required by law. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee had received a refund of Rs. 5,13,723/- which was offered for taxation in AY 2018-19. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication to the Assessing Officer to consider the differential amount and the impugned disallowance.

The Tribunal held that Insync Analytics India Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded as a comparable due to a high percentage of related party transactions (RPTs), failing the TPO's own filter. The Tribunal also noted that CES Limited provides both BPO and KPO services, while the assessee primarily offers translation services.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of sugar sales at concessional rates for fresh adjudication. The ground related to agricultural loss was not pressed and thus rejected. The disallowance on account of VSI contribution was deleted.

The tribunal set aside the disallowance on sale of sugar at concessional rates for fresh adjudication. The disallowance on VSI contribution was deleted, following a precedent.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the substantive grounds on merits and that there was no evidence of proper service of notices. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the Section 142A reference as invalid, as the amendment to Section 55A was prospective and Section 142A was the relevant provision. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this point.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the Section 142A reference as invalid, as the amendment to Section 55A was prospective and Section 142A was the relevant provision. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this point.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained under Section 41(1) as there was no material evidencing cessation or remission of liability. Furthermore, the addition could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 as it amounted to creating a new head of income in appeal.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had restored a similar issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court directions. The Tribunal adopted the same course of action for the present appeal.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee failed to avail them. However, in the interest of justice, a final opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee failed to avail them. However, in the interest of justice, a final opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent their case on merits.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues regarding excess cane price and concessional sugar sales were previously set aside by co-ordinate benches for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to follow the same course of action.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even if the assessee was not interested in prosecuting it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty levied on that basis had no legal validity. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were general advisory and policy-formulating in nature, not constituting 'fees for technical services' under the DTAA. It also deleted the addition for reimbursement of software charges, citing a Supreme Court ruling that payment for software products is not royalty.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because it was initiated beyond 4 years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the AO's reasoning for reopening was based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view, making the assessment order not erroneous. Therefore, the Pr.CIT was not justified in exercising revisional powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the Section 142A reference as invalid, as the amendment to Section 55A was prospective and Section 142A was the relevant provision. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this point.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues regarding excess cane price and concessional sugar sales were previously set aside by co-ordinate benches for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to follow the same course of action.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues regarding excess cane price and concessional sugar sales were previously set aside by co-ordinate benches for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to follow the same course of action.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues regarding excess cane price and concessional sugar sales were previously set aside by co-ordinate benches for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to follow the same course of action.

The Tribunal held that fees for intra-group services are taxable as fees for technical services, but the taxable scope is limited by the India-Spain DTAA. Reimbursement of leased line charges and software charges were decided in favour of the assessee. Interest under Section 234B was also decided in favour of the assessee for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was valid, as both the AO and the Commissioner had provided opportunities for the assessee to be heard regarding the special audit. The Tribunal followed a previous decision with identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and facts by reducing the cost of acquisition. The valuation was considered fair market value as per Section 55A(a) of the Act, and the relevant statutory amendment was prospective.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the factual matrix of the issues, despite affording opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that fees for intra-group services are taxable as fees for technical services, but the taxable scope is limited by the India-Spain DTAA. Reimbursement of leased line charges and software charges were decided in favour of the assessee. Interest under Section 234B was also decided in favour of the assessee for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the interest deduction under Section 24(b) is not allowable as the loan was not borrowed for the property in question, and the loan was taken after the property was acquired. The payment to the tenant was considered for bettering title, not for acquiring the property with borrowed funds.

The Tribunal held that the issues of excess cane price and concessional sale of sugar were to be remanded for fresh adjudication based on a previous co-ordinate bench's order. The other expenses were rejected due to the assessee's failure to provide requisite details.

The Tribunal held that the AO's show cause notice was fatal to the penalty proceedings because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's illness and the lack of proper representation, decided to set aside the case to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality, as established by the Supreme Court, does not apply to interest income earned from fixed deposits with nationalized banks. However, it allowed the assessee an opportunity to prove any deductible expenditure related to this interest income.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments in other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The revision directions of the PCIT were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the Section 142A reference as invalid, as the amendment to Section 55A was prospective and Section 142A was the relevant provision. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this point.

The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the addition. The Revenue could not pinpoint any specific material evidencing actual cessation or remission of the liability. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was valid, as both the AO and the Commissioner had provided opportunities for the assessee to be heard regarding the special audit. The Tribunal followed a previous decision with identical facts.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities regarding professional/technical receipts and unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to rebut the additions or provide supporting evidence.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the discounts were not commission and therefore not subject to TDS under Section 194H. The Tribunal noted that this issue had attained finality due to prior decisions of the ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessments lacked legal standing. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were rejected.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the discounts were not commission and therefore not subject to TDS under Section 194H. The Tribunal noted that this issue had attained finality due to prior decisions of the ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the discounts were not commission and therefore not subject to TDS under Section 194H. The Tribunal noted that this issue had attained finality due to prior decisions of the ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities regarding professional/technical receipts and unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to rebut the additions or provide supporting evidence.