ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the employees' PF and ESIC contributions paid before the return filing due date are allowable deductions. The Section 80G deduction was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of income recognition method back to the AO for re-assessment, citing a similar group case where the matter was sent back for determining correct income under the project completion method. For the Section 43CA addition, the Tribunal also remitted the matter to the AO to consider additional evidence regarding the transfer date of a specific flat.

The Tribunal held that the project completion date, determined by the issuance of the completion certificate, exceeded the stipulated five-year period from the financial year of project approval. Consequently, the assessee was ineligible for the deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal held that since there was no variation between the returned income and the assessed income, and the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the return, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had again failed to follow the previous directions. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal relied on previous High Court and Tribunal decisions which held that such deposits are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 45 lakhs, finding it to be based on presumption without sufficient material. However, it confirmed the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs as the assessee failed to provide corroborative circumstances for the reduction in sale price.

The Tribunal held that while the entire sum of bogus purchases could not be disallowed, it should be disallowed to the extent of the gross profit element embedded therein. This estimation was based on the principle that such purchases cannot be allowed in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years was not permissible as the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny assessment. The reopening was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was already decided in the assessee's own case by a previous ITAT order, which allowed a 7.5% deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal relied on previous High Court and Tribunal decisions which held that such deposits are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It dismissed one ground as not pressed. For the main ground, it considered the assessee's arguments regarding genuine transactions and seller demands.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal relied on previous High Court and Tribunal decisions which held that such deposits are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the brought forward long-term capital loss of the amalgamating company is available to the amalgamated company as per the scheme of amalgamation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition on account of delisting expenses, following a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide material evidence of an arrangement leading to extraordinary profits, making the invocation of Section 10B(7) and Section 80IA inapplicable. Consequently, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowance for payments made to branches, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and the department had surveyed the premises. However, the disallowance for the remaining amount was upheld due to lack of explanation from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the first and second provisos to Section 50C(1) are curative and retrospective, allowing the actual sale price received through banking channels at the time of the agreement to be considered for capital gains computation.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds regarding the Section 80IB(10) deduction, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for the annual letting value of unsold flats.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds regarding the Section 80IB(10) deduction, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. However, it upheld the deletion of the addition for the annual letting value of unsold flats, following a previous ruling.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of suppressed sales as the assessee failed to provide reconciliation. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of interest expenses, finding that the assessee could not prove commercial expediency for diverting interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes.

The Tribunal followed its own order for AY 2006-07 and remanded the present case back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done to ensure consistency and in light of the previous remand order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. This decision followed established judicial precedents from the High Courts.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. This is based on established High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal relied on previous High Court and Tribunal decisions which held that such deposits are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18. Since the employee's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal relied on previous High Court and Tribunal decisions which held that such deposits are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered an entirely different issue than the one appealed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the correct issue.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land was not an adventure in the nature of trade and that the profit arising from the sale should not be treated as business income. The Tribunal noted that the lands were agricultural lands, located beyond 8 km from municipal limits, and classified as such in revenue records. The assessee's intention to start horticulture activities, though not fully realized due to lack of financial assistance, was not disproved. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfied the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarifabibi (supra) for holding the land as agricultural land. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the Revenue had accepted the claim of exemption for the share of profit on the sale of the same land in the assessments of two co-owners. The Tribunal also relied on the decision in CIT Vs. Dhable, Bobde and others (supra), stating that the onus was on the Revenue to prove the land was a business asset, which it failed to do. Therefore, the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in treating the profits as business income. The addition of Rs. 2,40,37,290/- made by the AO was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal also noted that since the quantum addition was deleted, the first ground of appeal relating to the validity of the Section 148 notice did not need to be adjudicated. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly examine the benchmarking analysis submitted by the assessee for raw material imports. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for re-examination of the benchmarking analysis and alternative methods if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly examine the benchmarking analysis submitted by the assessee for raw material imports. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO for re-examination of the benchmarking analysis and alternative methods if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the brought forward long-term capital loss of the amalgamating company is available to the amalgamated company as per the scheme of amalgamation. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition on account of delisting expenses, following a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide clinching material to establish an arrangement between his father and the developer where the father received developed area in lieu of land, which was then gifted to the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of income recognition method back to the AO for re-assessment, citing a similar group case where the matter was sent back for determining correct income under the project completion method. For the Section 43CA addition, the Tribunal also remitted the matter to the AO to consider additional evidence regarding the transfer date of a specific flat.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide material evidence of an arrangement leading to extraordinary profits, making the invocation of Section 10B(7) and Section 80IA inapplicable. Consequently, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO's notice and penalty order were ambiguous as they did not strike out the inappropriate limb of Section 271(1)(c). This ambiguity vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that since there was no variation between the returned income and the assessed income, and the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the return, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, such a levy was not permissible under the amended section.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect based on a stricter interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) and the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) after factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was not specific regarding the default, which is fatal to the penalty proceedings. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted on this ground alone.

The Tribunal held that since the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 was quashed, all subsequent proceedings arising from it were also liable to be quashed. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s view was approved.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for ESOP expenditure, following the decision of a Special Bench in a similar case. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had erred by not strictly adhering to the remand directions from a previous order.

The Tribunal held that since the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 was quashed, all subsequent proceedings arising from it were also liable to be quashed. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s view was approved.

The Tribunal held that the pre-condition of DSIR's quantification for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) was not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the assessee's claim for the disallowed amount was accepted.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s remand order was a patent illegality as the relevant section of the Act had been amended. Consequently, the consequential proceedings arising from that order were quashed.