ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that Section 234E of the Act could only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015, as the mechanism for computing and demanding the fee under Section 200A was introduced from that date. Therefore, demands for periods prior to June 1, 2015, were without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient time and opportunity to explain the nature and source of cash deposits during the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue the rectification petition before the CIT(A). The assessee can challenge the consequential rectification order afresh if advised.

The Tribunal held that Section 50 is applicable only when depreciation has been allowed on the asset. Since the assessee had not claimed any depreciation on the school building, Section 50 was not applicable. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and applies from AY 2021-2022. For the impugned AY, the deduction is allowable as per earlier judicial precedents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal to avoid protracted litigation. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective from AY 2021-2022. For the impugned AY, payments made before the due date of filing the return were eligible for deduction, protected by earlier judicial precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing bonafide reasons. It also remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after condoning the 4-day delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing bonafide reasons. It also remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after condoning the 4-day delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, citing bonafide reasons. It also remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after condoning the 4-day delay.

The Tribunal held that payments of employees' contributions made after the statutory due date but before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as deductions. This is in line with previous High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that payments of employees' contributions to EPF and ESIC made after the statutory due dates but before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable as deductions. This is in line with previous judicial pronouncements and the law applicable for the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction if the employee's contribution is paid within the due date of filing the return of income. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Since the assessee had paid the employee's contribution before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, the disallowance was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) was not applicable to the assessment year in question. Since the employee's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked when a brought forward provision is cleared by payment, as it is not a case of remission or cessation of a trading liability. The addition was therefore wrongly made and sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed invested in a residential property, as evidenced by the development agreement and subsequent sale deed, and therefore was eligible for the Section 54F deduction. The AO's disallowance based on the development agreement was considered unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from deposits with nationalized banks, following the view of the Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s enhancement of the capital gain, finding that the assessee had a one-half share in the property. No material was presented to contradict the CIT(A)'s finding.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for deduction under Section 80IB(10) were fulfilled, as previously decided in the assessee's own case. The division of a plot due to reservations did not alter its character as a single plot.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have furnished the renewal certificate before the CIT(A) which might have been overlooked. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding the assessee's explanations for the cash deposits unconvincing and lacking substantiation. The Tribunal noted the recurring nature of the alleged mistakes, indicating they were not genuine errors.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and did not apply its mind to the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for deduction under Section 80IB(10) were fulfilled, as previously decided in the assessee's own case. The division of a plot due to reservations did not alter its character as a single plot.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Since the assessee had paid the employee's contribution before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, the disallowance was unjustified.

The Tribunal set aside the addition related to the loan from the husband and remitted it back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The addition from Ms. Sunanda Pise was deleted, and the addition related to Ms. Ratan Jalak was remitted back to the AO. The addition for cessation of trading liability was deleted.