ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.

The Tribunal held that if the income from the entries found in the searched group's diary was declared by the searched person as their own income, then no addition should sustain in the assessee's hands. Otherwise, the additions would stand. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification.

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the loan transaction. The authorities below were justified in making and sustaining the addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 found that the CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of appeal for non-prosecution without discussing the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in segregating the commission transaction for separate benchmarking without justification and in concluding an ALP of NIL without specifying the method. For Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the assessee's own funds exceeded investments, directing deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the addition, agreeing with the lower authorities that the reintroduction of funds after a significant delay, coupled with the assessee's low household expenses and actual land purchases, indicated the funds were from an unaccounted source.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 expression 'a residential house' under Section 54F encompasses different residential units located on different floors of the same building. Therefore, the two flats purchased by the assessee constitute one residential unit for the purpose of the exemption.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues for preceding assessment years were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal directed the AO to decide the current year's disallowance afresh in light of his findings in the preceding years.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee's contention that there were no cash loans in violation of section 269SS was noted.

The Tribunal held that the advance was for non-business purposes, but the disallowance needs to be computed considering the availability of interest-free funds with the assessee. The matter was remitted to the AO for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. However, the addition was restricted to the extent of the assessee's share in the properties, treating it as unexplained investment.

The tribunal rejected the assessee's grounds of appeal concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings, a disallowance under Section 40A(3), and short credit of TDS. The tribunal found no merit in these contentions.

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance without considering the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no merit in the argument against the reassessment proceedings. However, it modified the addition by considering the fair market value of the land at the time of conversion to stock-in-trade and disallowed improvement expenses due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the project development costs were revenue in nature and the assessee was justified in writing them off in the year it realized the project was unworkable. The decision of the assessee regarding the time of shelving the project was respected.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds regarding the assessee's eligibility for Section 11 exemption, as this was already decided in favour of the assessee. However, the issue of corpus donation disallowance was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 PCIT rightly exercised his revision jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the Assessing Officer had correctly decided the claims for deductions, noting that the assessment was completed without proper inquiries, attracting Section 263. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the PCIT's revision order introduced issues not raised in the show cause notice, specifically regarding the property belonging to an HUF. However, the Tribunal rejected other arguments, stating that the cost of acquisition and the nature of the capital asset were fundamental to the matter. The Tribunal clarified that the relevant transferred capital asset was the latter parcel of land obtained via lease deed dated July 21, 2014, which was not agricultural land, thus disentitling the assessee from Section 54B deduction. The cost of acquisition was considered to be the amount paid in 2014. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT had already granted relief by directing the Assessing Officer to treat the right to acquire 12.5% land as of August 4, 2000, instead of 2014. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 PCIT rightly exercised his revision jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the Assessing Officer had correctly decided the claims for deductions, noting that the assessment was completed without proper inquiries, attracting Section 263. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the PCIT's revision order introduced issues not raised in the show cause notice, specifically regarding the property belonging to an HUF. However, the Tribunal rejected other arguments, stating that the cost of acquisition and the nature of the capital asset were fundamental to the matter. The Tribunal clarified that the relevant transferred capital asset was the latter parcel of land obtained via lease deed dated July 21, 2014, which was not agricultural land, thus disentitling the assessee from Section 54B deduction. The cost of acquisition was considered to be the amount paid in 2014. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT had already granted relief by directing the Assessing Officer to treat the right to acquire 12.5% land as of August 4, 2000, instead of 2014. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 assessee's company profile itself indicated that the genset business was in tune with its overall operations and received technical support from its associated enterprise. Therefore, the aggregation of the segments by the lower authorities for transfer pricing adjustment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E and the amendment to Section 200A empowering the charging of such fees were prospective in nature and effective 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 upheld the additions made by the AO, stating that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim of trading activity and the source of cash deposits. The reopening of assessment was also found to be valid.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of transportation charges and salary expenses, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of these expenditures. The AO's disallowance was considered justified.