ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (2010-11), a cooperative bank was not liable to deduct TDS on interest payments made to its members. This was based on judicial precedents and legislative changes that occurred later.

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC is allowable as a deduction if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendment to Section 43B is prospective. However, Education Cess is not allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, which were based on a previous decision of the Tribunal itself in the assessee's case for AY 2009-10 (ITA No. 1640/PUN/2014). In that prior decision, the Tribunal had determined that the receipts were advance receipts, and the business profits were taxable in the year the project was completed and tenements/flats were handed over to prospective buyers, which was AY 2011-12. The Tribunal found that the amount received in the year under appeal (AY 2008-09) was an advance that did not culminate in the completion of the transaction. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal adopted judicial consistency and dismissed the Revenue's sole substantive grievance.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the administrative service charges were allowable as they were paid in accordance with the agreement and for business efficiency. It also held that the assembly of parts constituted manufacturing for the purpose of Section 80IC deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the royalty and homologation expenses were revenue in nature, consistent with previous assessment years. The Tribunal also directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to finalize computations based on preceding years' factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation claim back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to prove the necessary details of the impugned WDV as per law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case and the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying fees under Section 234E, as provided by the amendment to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is not warranted. This is based on judicial precedents from the Bombay and Himachal Pradesh High Courts.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date is not warranted. This is based on High Court precedents and the fact that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the AO was valid as allowing carry forward of losses claimed in a revised return filed beyond the due date was a mistake apparent from the record. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal found force in the Revenue's arguments that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of their LTCG claims. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision and a Calcutta High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that such gains were unexplained and lacked genuineness.

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

The Tribunal held that the delay was attributable to Covid-19 and directed the NFAC to admit the appeals. The appeals were to be decided on merits after complying with natural justice.

The Tribunal held that entities involved in medical transcription, healthcare, or those that underwent amalgamation are not valid comparables for the ITES segment. Similarly, entities engaged in Knowledge Processing Outsourcing (KPO) were also excluded.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) before making the disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee. The PCIT rightly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263 as the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that entities involved in medical transcription, healthcare, or those that underwent amalgamation are not valid comparables for the ITES segment. Similarly, entities engaged in Knowledge Processing Outsourcing (KPO) were also excluded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the disallowance of interest, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to make the advances to sister concerns, thus no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessees were given three opportunities to explain the delay in furnishing audited books.

The tribunal held that non-service of DRP directions does not vitiate the final assessment order. It also decided to segregate royalty payment transactions for transfer pricing analysis and remitted certain issues for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) before making the disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in segregating the royalty payment from other international transactions. However, the matter regarding the valuation of royalty on export sales was remanded to the DRP for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the loss from off-market share transactions, deeming them not genuine. It also confirmed the addition of share subscription money, as the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the disallowance of interest, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to make the advances to sister concerns, thus no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessees were given three opportunities to explain the delay in furnishing audited books.

The tribunal held that non-service of DRP directions does not vitiate the final assessment order. It also decided to segregate royalty payment transactions for transfer pricing analysis and remitted certain issues for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. This was based on High Court decisions that suggested estimation of profit rather than ad-hoc additions for bogus purchases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the ground challenging the AO's satisfaction for disallowance but partly allowed the appeal on the quantum of disallowance, directing the AO to restrict it to investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was not warranted if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on previous decisions that the 'right to collect toll' qualifies as a commercial right or intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii).

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI paid before the return filing due date are deductible for AY 2018-19, following earlier precedents. The issue of bonus payment disallowance was remanded for re-adjudication due to lack of proper consideration of evidence.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's stand, noting that the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years by the Tribunal itself. The Revenue did not point out any distinguishing facts or law for the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify any limb or charge. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to construct a residential house within three years from the date of sale of the asset, thus not fulfilling the conditions for deduction under Section 54F. The AO's denial of the deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have any tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO's reasons for reopening were not based on fresh information and lacked a live link to the alleged escapement of income.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Rule 17, which mandates online filing of Form 10, was not applicable as it came into force later. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that while Form 10 was available manually before the return filing date, the assessee failed to file an application for condonation of delay in online filing as required by subsequent circulars.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was not warranted if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was not warranted if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was not warranted if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was not warranted if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, as the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was prospective. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Rule 17, which mandates online filing of Form 10, was not applicable as it came into force later. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that while Form 10 was available manually before the return filing date, the assessee failed to file an application for condonation of delay in online filing as required by subsequent circulars.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the mechanism for computing and levying late fees under Section 234E, as provided by amendments to Section 200A, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, such fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.