ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal found that the assessee's rights and liabilities were not effectively adjudicated on merits due to the procedural issues in the faceless regime. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the assessment order allowing the deduction was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that opting for the beneficial tax rate under Section 115BAA is not automatic and requires filing Form No. 10IC by the due date. Since the assessee failed to file this form, they are disentitled to the benefit.

The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to correct the name of the assessee's counsel from 'Shri Siddhant Chandgude' to 'Shri Siddhesh Chaugule' and the date of pronouncement from '___-04-2023' to '10-04-2023'. The original order stands with these modifications.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the economic justification for the sale price of the shares, making the capital gain claim appear fictitious. The Tribunal concurred with the lower tax authorities' decision.

The Tribunal upheld the addition, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. and a co-ordinate bench decision. The delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not allowed as a deduction.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the economic justification for the sale price of the shares, making the capital gain claim appear fictitious. The Tribunal concurred with the lower tax authorities' decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the economic justification for the sale price of the shares, making the capital gain claim appear fictitious. The Tribunal concurred with the lower tax authorities' decision.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances sustained by the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the legitimacy and genuineness of the expenses by adducing sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowances sustained by the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the legitimacy and genuineness of the expenses by adducing sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the economic justification for the sale price of the shares, making the capital gain claim appear fictitious. The Tribunal concurred with the lower tax authorities' decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanations and evidence regarding the unexplained cash credits, even before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions made prior to the migration were not effectively considered by the NFAC. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the parties were not adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's rights and liabilities were not effectively adjudicated on merits due to the procedural issues in the faceless regime. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order allowing the deduction was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's rights and liabilities were not effectively adjudicated on merits due to the procedural issues in the faceless regime. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.