ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2023

M/S.MITTAL VASTU RACHANA LLP, PUNE,PUNE vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 516/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest on partner's capital contribution is allowable only up to 12% per annum as per Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, irrespective of the partnership deed. Therefore, the disallowance of interest exceeding 12% was upheld.

M/S.MITTAL VASTU RACHANA LLP, PUNE,PUNE vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 517/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest on partner's capital contribution is allowable only up to 12% per annum as per Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, irrespective of the partnership deed. Therefore, the disallowance of interest exceeding 12% was upheld.

MAULI MULTIPURPOSE ORGANISATION,THE CIT, EXEMPTION, PUNE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 225/PUN/2021[-]Status: Disposed17 May 2023Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemption)'s order, finding that the lease agreement did not provide adequate protection for the tax-free asset created by the assessee's funds and would ultimately benefit the trustees, thus violating Section 80G(5)(vi) read with Section 13(3).

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11, PUNE vs CAPGEMINI INDIA PVT.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 293/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: Heard17 May 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the relevant CBDT circulars. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to apply for revival if exceptions to the circular were found to apply.

RUPA SANJAY NIGADE,PUNE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), PUNE

ITA 380/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not correlate the bank deposits with actual sales. It treated the demonetization deposits of Rs.4.64 lakh as unrecorded sale proceeds, similar to the rest of the year's deposits. However, it directed the deletion of the addition for these deposits but increased the estimated profit by Rs.18,580/-.

JAYASHRI SHRIKANT DESHMUKH,AURANGABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 776/PUN/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the acquisition of the remaining gold and jewellery from HUF agricultural income was plausible. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating it as unexplained income.

DILIP BABULAL BHANDARI,PUNE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(2), PUNE

ITA 378/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that it would be just and fair to set aside the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

M/S. NAVYUG COTTN COMPANY,NANDED vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDED

ITA 440/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) allows deduction on simple write-off of bad debts, dispensing with the need to prove they actually became bad. For other expenses, a partial disallowance was deemed appropriate due to potential personal use.

NAMDEO RAMBHAU KUDALE,PUNE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), PUNE

ITA 422/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if it is not deposited before the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes. This decision followed the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

ASHFAQUE AHMED ABDUL HAMID ANSARI,DHULE vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DHULE CIRCLE, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 402/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 May 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

MURLIDHAR RAMGOPALJI BHAIYA,MALEGAON vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MALEGAON

ITA 385/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that a mere fall in GP rate cannot be a ground to reject the books of account, especially when the turnover has significantly increased. The addition made by enhancing the GP rate was directed to be deleted.

MAHARASHTRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), KOLHAPUR

ITA 383/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

SANTOSH SWARUPCHAND BHANDARI,SANGLI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), SANGLI

ITA 336/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reason provided by the assessee for not filing the audit report was not valid, as the person they entrusted with the audit was not a qualified Chartered Accountant as required by the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied was upheld.

M/S JAIHIND WEILDING AND BOILER WORK,NASHIK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 313/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case and lead fresh evidence.

PUSHPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

ITA 301/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that use of company vehicles by directors cannot be characterized as non-business use, and therefore, no part of such expenses should be disallowed. The company is a separate legal entity, and use by directors is not personal use by the company.

SUBORDINATE ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION,KOLHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 261/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal, following its own precedent which relied on the Karnataka High Court's view, held that the interest income earned from deposits with a nationalized bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES, PUNE,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 481/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 23 of the Income-tax Act, which allows for the annual letting value of unsold stock-in-trade to be considered income from house property after a specified period, was introduced w.e.f. 01-04-2018 and thus not applicable to the assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

NADEEM HUSAIN,AURANGABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), AURANGABAD

ITA 392/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

M/S JAIHIND WEILDING AND BOILER WORK,NASHIK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 311/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case and lead fresh evidence.

MRS SHARADA SHIVAJI MANE,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 103/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees' counsel had not pressed grounds 1 to 5 and 8 to 9 during the hearing. The Tribunal clarified that while the counsel had argued against disallowances in cases assessed under Section 44AD, there was no material or evidence filed to counter the CIT(A)'s detailed findings that the assessees had failed to prove their business activities or sub-contract works. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to reverse the lower authorities' actions which doubted the assessees' eligibility for the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD. Applying a stricter construction in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal held that the assessees were rightly denied the benefit of the presumptive taxation scheme. Accordingly, the sole substantive arguments challenging the expenditure disallowances of Rs. 71,29,920/-, Rs. 73,98,240/-, Rs. 68,08,960/-, and Rs. 67,34,000/- (case-wise) were rejected. The CIT(A)'s findings in all four cases were upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

MRS SHARADA SHIVAJI MANE,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 102/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees' counsel had not pressed grounds 1 to 5 and 8 to 9 during the hearing. The Tribunal clarified that while the counsel had argued against disallowances in cases assessed under Section 44AD, there was no material or evidence filed to counter the CIT(A)'s detailed findings that the assessees had failed to prove their business activities or sub-contract works. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to reverse the lower authorities' actions which doubted the assessees' eligibility for the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD. Applying a stricter construction in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal held that the assessees were rightly denied the benefit of the presumptive taxation scheme. Accordingly, the sole substantive arguments challenging the expenditure disallowances of Rs. 71,29,920/-, Rs. 73,98,240/-, Rs. 68,08,960/-, and Rs. 67,34,000/- (case-wise) were rejected. The CIT(A)'s findings in all four cases were upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

MUNIRA SHAFI PATHAN,SATARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATARA

ITA 93/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

NANASAHEB KUNDALIK BELAGE,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD

ITA 396/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

MRS SHANTABAI GUNDAPPA MANE,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 104/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees' counsel had not pressed grounds 1 to 5 and 8 to 9 during the hearing. The Tribunal clarified that while the counsel had argued against disallowances in cases assessed under Section 44AD, there was no material or evidence filed to counter the CIT(A)'s detailed findings that the assessees had failed to prove their business activities or sub-contract works. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to reverse the lower authorities' actions which doubted the assessees' eligibility for the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD. Applying a stricter construction in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal held that the assessees were rightly denied the benefit of the presumptive taxation scheme. Accordingly, the sole substantive arguments challenging the expenditure disallowances of Rs. 71,29,920/-, Rs. 73,98,240/-, Rs. 68,08,960/-, and Rs. 67,34,000/- (case-wise) were rejected. The CIT(A)'s findings in all four cases were upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

MRS SHANTABAI GUNDAPPA MANE,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

ITSSA 105/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessees' counsel had not pressed grounds 1 to 5 and 8 to 9 during the hearing. The Tribunal clarified that while the counsel had argued against disallowances in cases assessed under Section 44AD, there was no material or evidence filed to counter the CIT(A)'s detailed findings that the assessees had failed to prove their business activities or sub-contract works. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to reverse the lower authorities' actions which doubted the assessees' eligibility for the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD. Applying a stricter construction in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal held that the assessees were rightly denied the benefit of the presumptive taxation scheme. Accordingly, the sole substantive arguments challenging the expenditure disallowances of Rs. 71,29,920/-, Rs. 73,98,240/-, Rs. 68,08,960/-, and Rs. 67,34,000/- (case-wise) were rejected. The CIT(A)'s findings in all four cases were upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

SHRI MAHESH MANOHAR PIMPALKUTE,NEW DELHI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, MALEGAON

ITA 398/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

SHRI SANT DNYANESHWAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD.,SATRA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA

ITA 397/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 May 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present evidence.

SHRI RAMESH RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 87/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

SHRI LALIT RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 81/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

SHRI LALIT RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 82/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

SHRI LALIT RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 83/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

SHRI RAMESH RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 86/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

SHRI RAMESH RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 88/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

SHRI RAMESH RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 89/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

PADMASHRI DR. D. Y. PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,KOLHAPUR vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

ITA 337/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to consider the latest legislative developments, including amendments to Section 36(1)(xvii) and Section 155 of the Income Tax Act, along with CBDT circulars, when re-examining the issues.

SUSHILABAI DNANESHWAR VANSALE,SOLAPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA 2829/PUN/2016[1997-98 (B.P 2002-03)]Status: Disposed15 May 2023Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that block assessments must be based on evidence collected during the search, not on extrapolation. Therefore, additions based on extrapolation were deleted, while additions supported by seized material were confirmed.

SHREE SOMESHWAR SSK LTD,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

ITA 390/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO should consider intervening legislative developments, including amendments to Section 36(1)(xvii) and Section 155 of the Income Tax Act, and CBDT circulars, when adjudicating the issues on remand. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

M/S KUTE SONS DAIRYS LTD.,SATARA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3, PUNE

ITA 410/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had the power to revise the assessment order under Section 263 if it was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since the Assessing Officer had not properly enquired into the issues, the PCIT's revision order was affirmed.

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE

ITA 413/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries. It further held that interest on NPAs is not taxable on an accrual basis, upholding the real income theory and previous High Court decisions, and that ICDS provisions do not override the Act.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), PUNE vs M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

ITA 667/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was following the Project Completion Method, which was a recognized accounting method for the year. The difference in income was due to a change in accounting method, not concealment, and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

PADMASHRI DR. D. Y. PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,KOLHAPUR vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

ITA 338/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to consider the latest legislative developments, including amendments to Section 36(1)(xvii) and Section 155 of the Income Tax Act, along with CBDT circulars, when re-examining the issues.

SHRI PRAKASH SADASHIV SONAWANE,NASHIK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 349/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the lack of a clear finding on whether the assessee received consideration in specified modes and the absence of a DVO's report, which is considered mandatory.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), PUNE vs VASANTRAO NAIK NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA, PUNE

ITA 368/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous coordinate bench decisions and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. Therefore, the assessment order allowing the deduction was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

SOLAPUR ZILHA PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA NIYAMIT,SOLAPUR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-4, PUNE

ITA 370/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow this claim.

SHOLAPUR DISTRICT POLICE EMPLOYEES CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SICIETY,SOLAPUR vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE

ITA 376/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society earning interest income from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following previous judgments. The PCIT's revision order was found to be in error.

KIRLOSKAR CHILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), PUNE

ITA 403/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The tribunal found that the NFAC wrongly relied on a Supreme Court decision irrelevant to the disallowance issue. The matter was remanded to the NFAC for fresh consideration of the grounds raised by the assessee.

ENVISION LANDMARKS LLP,PUNE vs TDS, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

ITA 406/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

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

ENVISION LANDMARKS LLP,PUNE vs TDS, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

ITA 405/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

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

ENVISION LANDMARKS LLP,PUNE vs TDS, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

ITA 404/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

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

SHRI RAMESH RAMLAL OSWAL,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 90/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Dabba Trading is an illegal activity prohibited under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Consequently, any expenditure incurred for such an illegal purpose cannot be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession under Explanation (1) to Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and no deduction or allowance can be made for such expenditure. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer should have disallowed the entire expenditure claimed to have been incurred to earn profits from Dabba trading. Therefore, the entire value of transactions in Dabba trading is taxable as business income. The assessment orders, as confirmed by the CIT(A), were upheld, and the grounds of appeal were rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.