ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods prior to this date under Section 200A was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that M/s. Excel Infosys Ltd. was not a valid comparable due to its diverse activities and volatile margins. Similarly, M/s. Universal Print Systems Ltd. was also excluded as it lacked functional similarity in the ITES segment.

The Tribunal held that the issue of corporate support services and manufacturing segment adjustments had been decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment years by its co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts or law for the current assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year had been restored to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the current appeal's main issue to the AO/TPO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that an APA is applicable only for the specified period and cannot be extended to years not covered by it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s reliance on the APA for the current assessment year was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the issue of corporate support services and manufacturing segment adjustments had been decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment years by its co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts or law for the current assessment years.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the disallowance was not warranted if the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal followed its own precedent and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC deposited after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date is not warranted. This is based on prior High Court judgments applicable before the Finance Act, 2021 amendment.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted agreements with the professionals to the AO and CIT(A). However, the subordinate authorities' orders did not clearly indicate the evidence submitted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal upheld the exclusion of two companies with different financial year endings, citing a jurisdictional High Court judgment. It also ruled that a comparable company cannot be excluded solely due to high or low profit margins unless abnormal business conditions are proven.

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

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on issues like freebies to doctors and wealth tax adjustment for book profit calculation.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were similar to those in preceding years. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of service charges from one AE and remitted the matter for examination of services from other AEs.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC deposited after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date is not warranted. This is based on prior High Court judgments applicable before the Finance Act, 2021 amendment.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allows for the computation of fees under Section 234E, is prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods before this date.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted the assessment in a casual manner without properly examining the evidence and explanations provided by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions and accept the voluntary disclosure of income was found to be justified and reasonable.

The ITAT found that while there were discrepancies, the AO had not rejected the books of accounts entirely. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to produce supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendments to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the statutory mechanism for computation and demand was not in place. Therefore, the late fees levied for FY 2012-13 were set aside.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowered the levy of late fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was invalid.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowered the levy of late fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was invalid.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendments to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowered the levy of late fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods before this date.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the statutory mechanism for computation and demand was not in place. Therefore, the late fees levied for FY 2012-13 were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not permissible prior to June 1, 2015, as the statutory mechanism for computation and demand was not in place. Therefore, the late fees levied for FY 2012-13 were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods before this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A of the Act empowering the levy of such fees, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS returns filed for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowered the levy of late fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods prior to this date was invalid.