ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2022

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 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 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 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 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 held that since the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income and the assessment years were prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the disallowance was not warranted. The deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income and the assessment years were prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the disallowance was not warranted. The deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income and the assessment years were prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the disallowance was not warranted. The deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that interest income from fixed deposits made in a nationalized bank does not satisfy the mutuality test, following a jurisdictional bench decision.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the conversion of agricultural land to residential use. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in reducing the closing WIP to Nil as it was based on reasonable probability of non-recovery, aligning with accounting standards and business decisions. Any future recovery would be taxable under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee had deposited the TDS amount before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). The lower authorities' action was upheld in principle pending this verification.

The Tribunal held that the processing of bagasse for fuel briquettes is eligible for deduction under section 80JJA. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was found to be without merit.

The Tribunal found that the issue required factual verification to ensure no double addition of turnover receipts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence of the lenders' identity, capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden then shifted to the Revenue to disprove these submissions, which it failed to do. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) relied on speculation and failed to verify the lenders' tax records.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the taxes under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the land acquisition proceedings treated the lands as agricultural and not barren, a fact not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of plotting land and selling plots separately constituted a business activity. Therefore, the lower authorities were correct in treating the income as business income rather than capital gains.

The Tribunal noted that the land acquisition proceedings treated the lands as agricultural and not barren, a fact not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the issue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not fully explain the genuineness of withdrawals being redeposited, but the revenue also failed to prove otherwise. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal remanded the first issue regarding income reconciliation to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The second issue concerning depreciation disallowance was rejected as the CIT(A) had already upheld the disallowance in principle, albeit restricted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' share of EPF deposited after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date is not warranted for the assessment year 2018-19. This is based on various High Court judgments and the fact that the amendment disallowing such deposits applies from AY 2021-22 onwards.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee's belated request to treat the original return as a response to the Section 148 notice was not curable and invalidated the reassessment. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove cash payment and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the impugned expenditures were revenue in nature as they had a direct nexus with the business activity and did not create enduring benefits. The Tribunal also upheld the allowance of bad debts written off, stating that it was sufficient if they were written off in the accounts.

The Tribunal held that the current appeal was a duplicate of a previously filed and withdrawn appeal. Therefore, it was dismissed as a duplicate.

The Tribunal held that the current appeal was a duplicate of an already withdrawn appeal. Therefore, it was dismissed as such.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee's belated request to treat the original return as a response to the Section 148 notice was not curable and invalidated the reassessment. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove cash payment and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The tribunal held that the current appeal was a duplicate of a previously withdrawn appeal. Therefore, it was dismissed as a duplicate.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent, remanded the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to compute the disallowance under Rule 8D by considering only those investments that yielded exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the taxability of remuneration and interest on capital paid to partners is governed by Section 40B of the Act. The Tribunal found the reasoning of the CIT(A) to be unreasonable and decided that the matter requires reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notional value of a vacant building is assessable as income from house property. However, it remitted the matter to the AO to consider the annual rental value as computed by local authorities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that PMS income should be assessed as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed was a duplicate of an already withdrawn appeal. Therefore, it was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition on which the penalty was imposed had been deleted by the same Tribunal in a previous order. Therefore, with no quantum addition surviving, the penalty cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order and Supreme Court judgments, remitted the issues of excess cane price and concessional sale of sugar back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of interest under Section 43B was found justified as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of Container Freight Station. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the assessee's own case and similar precedents.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is to determine the profit component within the excess payment to members and apply Section 40A(2) for non-members.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the disallowance under Section 14A was excessive concerning exempt income. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.