ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2022

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable because the assessee had sought to withdraw it before the CIT(A), and this withdrawal was accepted. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the estimation of net profit at 10% by the lower authorities. It noted the assessee's consistent failure to produce accounts and the lack of evidence for the claimed vandalism.

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 held that the AO had applied his mind to the sales promotion expenses claim and made a specific disallowance, indicating proper application of mind. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice suffered from a lack of jurisdiction, rendering all subsequent proceedings invalid. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Revenue did not contest this request. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions. The CIT(A) had provided sufficient opportunity and the AO failed to point out any defects in the books of account or controvert the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the Section 54F deduction issue back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is required to file and prove all necessary evidence within two effective opportunities of hearing at his own risk.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as it was supportive of the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is only applicable in relation to exempt income. For AY 2013-14, since there was no exempt income, the disallowance was deleted. For AY 2014-15, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement was not effective in the relevant previous year as the condition of converting the land from agricultural to residential was not met. Therefore, the transfer could not be considered complete under Section 2(47)(v).

The Tribunal upheld the addition of long-term capital gains as it was agreed upon by the assessee. However, the disallowance of Section 54 deduction was deleted as it was made by way of enhancement in the first appellate proceedings, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal noted that a single ground regarding advance tax payment had been restored to the AO in the first appellate proceedings. Since the current grounds were not raised in the first appeal, the Tribunal found no merit in them.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the substantive grounds of appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the lower authorities that these liabilities fall under Section 43B and are allowable only upon actual payment. The assessee failed to demonstrate when these pre-existing liabilities were added back to income to allow credit on payment basis.

The Tribunal held that allowing possession to be taken in part performance of a contract, as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, constitutes a 'transfer'. The right to receive consideration accrues at the time of transfer, even if actual receipt is in the future.

The Tribunal held that there was no material or stipulation in the sale deed to suggest that the assessee's share contained any charge or encumbrance of his mother's share. The payment was considered an application of sale proceeds to reduce capital gains liability.

The Tribunal followed its previous co-ordinate bench order and the Bombay High Court's decision, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors in the facts or law for the current assessment years.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271B, stating that the assessee was obligated to maintain proper books of accounts and get them audited as per Section 44AB. Failure to do so cannot be taken advantage of by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s direction of 10% disallowance of total purchases to a disallowance of only the identified bogus purchases, remanding the computation to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues of excess cane price and concessional sugar sales were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication by co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's claim for Section 80P deduction in principle, following a High Court decision.

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 held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the 'right to collect toll' as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This was supported by previous tribunal decisions and a Special Bench ruling.

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 found that the assessee may not have intended to abandon its appeal, given it was served only once. Therefore, to ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's show cause notice failed to specify whether the taxpayer concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, this procedural defect is fatal to the penalty proceedings.

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 held that Section 14A disallowance is only applicable in relation to exempt income. For AY 2013-14, since there was no exempt income, the disallowance was deleted. For AY 2014-15, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.

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 held that the CIT (Exemption) failed to consider the object clauses of the trust deed and set aside the order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement was not effective in the relevant previous year as the condition of converting the land from agricultural to residential was not met. Therefore, the transfer could not be considered complete under Section 2(47)(v).

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement was not effective in the relevant previous year as the condition of converting the land from agricultural to residential was not met. Therefore, the transfer could not be considered complete under Section 2(47)(v).

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is responsible for proving the reasons for delay and the merits of the case within three effective opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement was not effective in the relevant previous year as the condition of converting the land from agricultural to residential was not met. Therefore, the transfer could not be considered complete under Section 2(47)(v).

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions, not entity-level transactions. It also ruled that the government grant received under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, was a capital receipt and not taxable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the joint development agreement was not effective in the relevant previous year as the condition of converting the land from agricultural to residential was not met. Therefore, the transfer could not be considered complete under Section 2(47)(v).

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s direction of 10% disallowance of total purchases to a disallowance of only the identified bogus purchases, remanding the computation to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal followed its previous co-ordinate bench order and the Bombay High Court's decision, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors in the facts or law for the current assessment years.

The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271B for the failure to get the books of account audited within the prescribed time. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not considered sufficient to waive the penalty.

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

The Tribunal followed its previous co-ordinate bench order and the Bombay High Court's decision, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors in the facts or law for the current assessment years.

The Tribunal found that the taxpayer's default in appearing was reasonable as it was for a single instance. The penalty was not sustainable in law and was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the admission fees and short TDS issues, remanding them back for re-adjudication with specific reasons and directions for the assessee to provide proper documentation. The appeal regarding the building fund was not fully adjudicated in the provided text.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd., remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to determine the profit component within the higher price paid to members and re-examine payments to non-members under Section 40A(2).

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inability to produce documents but also noted discrepancies. The Tribunal granted a further lump-sum relief, reducing the addition.