ITAT Pune Judgments — December 2022

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) cannot be accepted for the current assessment year, as it was already dismissed for a prior year in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that claiming a deduction for the first time in Section 153A proceedings does not automatically attract penalty. The quantum and penalty proceedings are distinct, and the assessee's actions did not constitute concealment.

The Tribunal noted that no reference was made to the Valuation Officer under Section 50C, which is mandatory. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. The on-money addition was also kept in abeyance pending the finalization of capital gains computation.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular extending the due date for filing returns did not restrict the period for calculating interest on refund under Section 244A. Such a restriction would be prejudicial to the assessee and contrary to the statute.

The Tribunal, following its own previous orders and maintaining judicial consistency, upheld the assessee's use of internal comparables for determining the ALP. The TPO was directed to compute the ALP in light of these internal comparables.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous due to lack of proper inquiry regarding cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to bring to tax the correct amount of unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that claiming a deduction for the first time in Section 153A proceedings, even in unabated assessments, does not automatically attract penalty. The penalty proceedings are separate from quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that claiming a deduction for the first time in Section 153A proceedings, even in unabated assessments, does not automatically attract penalty. The penalty proceedings are separate from quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that claiming a deduction for the first time in Section 153A proceedings, even in unabated assessments, does not automatically attract penalty. The penalty proceedings are separate from quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was unintentional and due to technical glitches beyond the assessee's control, constituting a reasonable cause. Since the procedural compliance was eventually made, the exemption should not be denied.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked revisionary powers as the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate. The Tribunal also upheld the applicability of Explanation-2 to section 263, as the assessment was framed after its insertion date.

The Tribunal held that the CPC can only consider documents filed with the return. Since the return was filed in the wrong form and the audit report was not submitted, the assessee could not claim exemption under Section 11 at the intimation stage. The rejection of the Section 154 petition and the confirmation by NFAC were upheld.

The Tribunal restored the Section 43CA additions back to the Assessing Officer and upheld the deletion of additions based on the percentage completion method. The Tribunal also agreed that compensation sums paid to customers are deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, thus affirming the addition. However, it allowed the deduction for compensation paid to customers, considering it a business expenditure.

The Tribunal restored the Section 43CA additions back to the Assessing Officer and upheld the deletion of additions based on the percentage completion method. The Tribunal also agreed that compensation sums paid to customers are deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal restored the Section 43CA additions back to the Assessing Officer and upheld the deletion of additions based on the percentage completion method. The Tribunal also agreed that compensation sums paid to customers are deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a confession without corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's claim of coercion during the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, thus affirming the addition. However, it allowed the deduction for compensation paid to customers, considering it a business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, thus affirming the addition. However, it allowed the deduction for compensation paid to customers, considering it a business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's grounds regarding denial of exemption and treating the assessee as AOP were academic as consequential assessments showed income as NIL. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 40A(7)(b) disallowance, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal restored the Section 43CA additions back to the Assessing Officer and upheld the deletion of additions based on the percentage completion method. The Tribunal also agreed that compensation sums paid to customers are deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits from his father was plausible and supported by evidence. The lower authorities ought not to have rejected this explanation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's grounds regarding denial of exemption and treating the assessee as AOP were academic as consequential assessments showed income as NIL. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 40A(7)(b) disallowance, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal restored the Section 43CA additions back to the Assessing Officer and upheld the deletion of additions based on the percentage completion method. The Tribunal also agreed that compensation sums paid to customers are deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal restored the Section 43CA additions back to the Assessing Officer and upheld the deletion of additions based on the percentage completion method. The Tribunal also agreed that compensation sums paid to customers are deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order before the expiry of the time granted to the appellant for making submissions, which violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order before the expiry of the time granted to the appellant for making submissions, which violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employee contributions to provident fund/ESIC is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order before the expiry of the time granted to the appellant for making submissions, which violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order before the expiry of the time granted to the appellant for making submissions, which violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) violated the principle of natural justice by not providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order before the expiry of the time granted to the appellant for making submissions, which violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revision directions, finding that the AO's assessment was erroneous for not properly examining the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the land purchase. The assessee's arguments regarding development rights were not considered due to lack of factual verification.

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 50,000, aligning with the assessee's suo motu disallowance. For ESOP expenditure, the Tribunal followed its previous order and allowed the deduction. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for AY 2013-14. This was because the DSIR had issued Form 3CM approving the R&D facility with an effective date within the relevant previous year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It found that the disallowances were not based on agreed facts, and that the assessee had met the conditions for claiming depreciation, interest, and bad debts.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings before the ITAT, nor did they file any written submissions or adjournment letters. There was no evidence on record from the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) to rebut or controvert the additions confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found merit in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld it. Specifically, regarding Ground No. 1 (section 40A(3)), the CIT(A) had upheld a disallowance of Rs. 17,06,500/- (though the assessee's grounds refer to Rs. 60,36,500/- and Rs. 64,66,000/-). The CIT(A) found that the assessee could not demonstrate any exception under Rule 6DD. Regarding Ground No. 2 (section 69A/69), the CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 60,36,500/-. The CIT(A) observed that the entire transactions of Rs. 60,36,500/- were made in cash, making the money trail impossible to establish, and that the AO had correctly exercised his discretion. The CIT(A) also upheld the addition made by the AO under section 69 of Rs. 57,56,500/- as the assessee could not explain the source of investment on a one-to-one basis. The net addition sustained by the CIT(A) under section 40A(3) and section 69 was Rs. 60,36,500/-. The Tribunal, in the absence of any rebuttal from the assessee, dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The principle cited is that the ITAT is the final fact-finding authority, and if it fully agrees with the lower appellate authority and has no other grounds, it does not act illegally by not repeating the reasons.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for withdrawal of a suit is a capital receipt and not taxable as income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO can frame block assessments based on post-search inquiries, not just seized material. It also ruled that the surcharge under Section 113 Proviso was wrongly levied as it was not retrospective. The Tribunal upheld additions related to unaccounted stock and undisclosed profits from M/s. Akshay Traders, and excess stock, but directed telescoping to avoid double addition.

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 50,000, aligning with the assessee's suo motu disallowance. For ESOP expenditure, the Tribunal followed its previous order and allowed the deduction. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt arising from the transfer of a capital asset, not income from other sources. It also directed re-computation of long-term capital gains and allowed the assessee's eligibility for Section 54F deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper inquiry during the limited scrutiny and verified the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the revisionary proceedings were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because the Assessing Officer did not strike off the irrelevant portion, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), could only be applied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults were for earlier periods, the levy was not justified.

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee could not be levied for the period in question.

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee could not be levied for the period in question.

The Tribunal held that the premium paid for insuring the life of the director cannot be allowed as a deduction because the assessee failed to prove the business expediency of the expenditure and failed to establish it as a key man insurance policy.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as provided by the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, is applicable only after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults pertained to periods before this amendment, the levy was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as provided by the insertion of Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, is applicable only after June 1, 2015. Since the defaults pertained to periods before this amendment, the levy was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not guilty of contumacious conduct as no prejudice was caused and the inaction on the adjournment petition led the assessee to believe time was granted. Therefore, penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was not leviable.