ITAT Pune Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a reasonable and effective opportunity to comply with the requirements. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the rejection was made without affording the appellant a reasonable and effective opportunity to cure the defects, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and lacking any material to support a different view on the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was not erroneous. The issue of eligibility of interest income for deduction under Section 80P was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous. The interest income earned by the cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as the AO had taken a plausible view based on the material before him, and the PCIT could not initiate fresh litigation based on a different interpretation. The revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' share of contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payment before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) does not cure the default.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid by the assessee was on current balances of the partnership firm, which constituted a loan and not capital. Therefore, the ratio of the cited case law regarding interest on capital was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the ill-health of his wife, which prevented timely audit. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was deleted based on the provisions of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contributions to welfare funds is allowable only if deposited before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts, not just before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application under Section 154 was indeed barred by limitation, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry into the agricultural income and its expenses. The AO was directed to re-examine the assessment with detailed inquiry.

The Tribunal found that the pandemic might have hindered the assessee from furnishing the required details. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) do not qualify for deduction if not deposited by the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that the services were rendered outside India and did not 'make available' technical knowledge to the Indian company as required by the India-USA DTAA. Therefore, the income was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous because the AO did not conduct proper inquiry to ascertain if the land was used for agricultural purposes in the two years preceding the sale, a condition for Section 54B deduction. The assessee also admitted the land was only cultivated until 1997-98.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts by the prescribed due date under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date does not apply to employee contributions under Section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, holding that the transactions were void ab initio due to fraud. The assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions, and the principle of fraud vitiates everything.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employee's contribution must be credited to the employee's account in the relevant fund on or before the prescribed due date under the respective Act. Delayed deposit, even if before the return filing due date, does not allow for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the transactions of purchase and sale of lands, undertaken within short durations and with a clear intention of commercial gain, constituted an 'adventure in the nature of trade'. Therefore, the profits were taxable as business income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employee contributions are not credited to the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. The proviso to Section 43B, allowing deduction if paid before the return filing due date, does not override Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening and reassessments were invalid because the income that formed the basis for reopening was not assessed. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was also annulled as its foundation was non-existent.

The Tribunal held that the management support fees are not taxable in India, following its own previous decisions and noting that the relevant CBDT circular was not applicable retrospectively. For other fees, the Tribunal remanded the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.