ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2023

SITARAM R. RAHANE,NASHIK vs INCOME TAX OFFICE. WARD 3, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 650/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not fulfill the primary conditions of Section 54B as they had purchased 'other rights' in the land, not the land itself, and the seller was not the owner. Therefore, the deduction was not eligible.

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 95/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs M/S OMSHREE AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DHULE, DHULE

ITSSA 45/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of estimated gross profit were to be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly disapproved the AO's action in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of cash shortfall were to be dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that the cash shortfall represented the utilization of funds for business expenditure that remained unaccounted for, and that a shortfall, unlike an excess of cash, does not give rise to unaccounted money. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents in this regard. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw them. In light of the assessee's request and the Revenue's no-objection, the Tribunal dismissed the three cross-objections as withdrawn with a cost of ₹25,000/- in each case, imposed for wasting the time and resources of the Revenue and the court. The operative direction was the dismissal of all Revenue appeals and all assessee cross-objections with cost.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs M/S OMSHREE AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DHULE

ITSSA 49/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of estimated gross profit were to be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly disapproved the AO's action in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of cash shortfall were to be dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that the cash shortfall represented the utilization of funds for business expenditure that remained unaccounted for, and that a shortfall, unlike an excess of cash, does not give rise to unaccounted money. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents in this regard. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw them. In light of the assessee's request and the Revenue's no-objection, the Tribunal dismissed the three cross-objections as withdrawn with a cost of ₹25,000/- in each case, imposed for wasting the time and resources of the Revenue and the court. The operative direction was the dismissal of all Revenue appeals and all assessee cross-objections with cost.

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 96/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs M/S OMSHREE AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DHULE

ITSSA 48/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of estimated gross profit were to be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly disapproved the AO's action in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of cash shortfall were to be dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that the cash shortfall represented the utilization of funds for business expenditure that remained unaccounted for, and that a shortfall, unlike an excess of cash, does not give rise to unaccounted money. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents in this regard. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw them. In light of the assessee's request and the Revenue's no-objection, the Tribunal dismissed the three cross-objections as withdrawn with a cost of ₹25,000/- in each case, imposed for wasting the time and resources of the Revenue and the court. The operative direction was the dismissal of all Revenue appeals and all assessee cross-objections with cost.

SHRI SUNIL SHRIPATI MANE,KOLHAPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITSSA 114/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument regarding Section 153C assessment being invalid because he was the "searched" party lacks merit. The Tribunal noted that while the panchanama indicated a search at the assessee's premises, the search warrant was issued in the name of Shri Jayant Govind Patil. The Tribunal referred to Section 153C, which applies to a "person" other than the "searched person," and cited MDLR Resorts (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013] 40 taxmann.com 365 (Del.) to clarify that Section 153A is invoked for a searched person, and Section 153C for others. The Tribunal found that even if there were defects in the panchanama, it did not affect the initiation of the search, which is the precondition for invoking Section 153A. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's challenge to the Section 68 addition of Rs. 4,54,000/- for unsecured loans, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, thus not discharging the onus placed upon him. No other grounds were pressed.

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 91/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs M/S OMSHREE AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DHULE

ITSSA 50/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of estimated gross profit were to be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly disapproved the AO's action in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of cash shortfall were to be dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that the cash shortfall represented the utilization of funds for business expenditure that remained unaccounted for, and that a shortfall, unlike an excess of cash, does not give rise to unaccounted money. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents in this regard. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw them. In light of the assessee's request and the Revenue's no-objection, the Tribunal dismissed the three cross-objections as withdrawn with a cost of ₹25,000/- in each case, imposed for wasting the time and resources of the Revenue and the court. The operative direction was the dismissal of all Revenue appeals and all assessee cross-objections with cost.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE vs SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED, PUNE

ITSSA 98/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs M/S OMSHREE AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DHULE

ITSSA 47/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of estimated gross profit were to be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly disapproved the AO's action in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of cash shortfall were to be dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that the cash shortfall represented the utilization of funds for business expenditure that remained unaccounted for, and that a shortfall, unlike an excess of cash, does not give rise to unaccounted money. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents in this regard. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw them. In light of the assessee's request and the Revenue's no-objection, the Tribunal dismissed the three cross-objections as withdrawn with a cost of ₹25,000/- in each case, imposed for wasting the time and resources of the Revenue and the court. The operative direction was the dismissal of all Revenue appeals and all assessee cross-objections with cost.

VILAS ALIAS RAJU SHRAWAN CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5), JALGAON

ITA 1711/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the transaction with Manas Arun Kulkarni, which formed a significant part of the addition, was not substantiated with proper evidence and dismissed the related grounds. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on agricultural income, allowing the entire claim.

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

ITA 1957/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the matter of sugarcane purchases and concessional sugar sales should be remanded to the Assessing Officer. This is to allow for fresh adjudication in line with Supreme Court judgments, considering profit distribution and specific sales criteria.

SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI,RAIGAD vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

ITA 605/PUN/2020[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found major factual errors in the lower authorities' orders regarding ownership, possession, and the 'Watan Land' status. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside for de novo adjudication.

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that statements recorded under section 132(4) cannot be considered confessional if subsequently retracted and have no evidentiary value. Notings in seized documents without essential components for a taxable event are considered 'dumb documents' and cannot form the basis for additions.

PATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,SATARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 565/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the audit report in Form No. 10B was not ready at the time of filing the return of income, and the assessee claimed exemption without the auditor's quantification. Therefore, the decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat were not applicable.

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 94/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE vs SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED, PUNE

ITSSA 97/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 92/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs M/S OMSHREE AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DHULE, DHULE

ITSSA 46/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of estimated gross profit were to be dismissed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly disapproved the AO's action in rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that the Revenue's appeals concerning the deletion of additions made on account of cash shortfall were to be dismissed. The Tribunal reasoned that the cash shortfall represented the utilization of funds for business expenditure that remained unaccounted for, and that a shortfall, unlike an excess of cash, does not give rise to unaccounted money. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents in this regard. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw them. In light of the assessee's request and the Revenue's no-objection, the Tribunal dismissed the three cross-objections as withdrawn with a cost of ₹25,000/- in each case, imposed for wasting the time and resources of the Revenue and the court. The operative direction was the dismissal of all Revenue appeals and all assessee cross-objections with cost.

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, PUNE

ITSSA 93/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be construed as a confessional statement and lacks evidentiary value, especially when subsequently retracted. Regarding the diary notings, the Tribunal found them to be 'dumb documents' as they lacked essential components like dates, names, and the specific assessment year, which are necessary to constitute a taxable event. Therefore, these entries could not form the basis for additions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45,34,000/- made for the relevant year (AY 2017-18). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the assessee's declared income in the return of income sufficiently explained the source for the loss incurred in Dabba Trading, and thus no separate addition was required. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, and dismissed the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16.

SPAN OVERSEAS P LTD,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3, PUNE

ITA 409/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding that the AO had not conducted necessary inquiries regarding the Sales Tax Amnesty Scheme claim. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

FAIZAN E KANZUL IMAAN,AHMEDNAGAR vs CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

ITA 438/PUN/2023[NA]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's objects in light of Section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the issue afresh as per law.

BMC SOFTWARE ASIA PACIFIC PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), CIRCLE-1, PUNE

ITA 148/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the receipts from support and maintenance services did not qualify as fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(a) or 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Following its own precedent for the preceding assessment year, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's grounds.

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

ITA 300/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of the donation disallowance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the assessee claimed to have filed Form 58A. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.

NEMAJIRAO DHARERAO DESHMUK,SOLAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), SOLAPUR., SOLAPUR.

ITA 459/PUN/2023[2012-2013]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his primary onus by filing 7/12 extracts proving his agricultural income. Since the Revenue failed to provide any evidence to rebut this claim, the addition was directed to be deleted.

BRAHMIN SABHA, JALGAON,JALGAON vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 639/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and not penal. Considering the spirit of providing welfare, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case and furnish the necessary details.

M/S. RICH CAM AUTO ENGINEERING(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10 (1), PUNE

ITA 581/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A).

VEERSHAIV KAKKAYYA DHOR,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 658/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and not penal. Considering the importance of charitable trusts in societal welfare, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, KOLHAPUR vs GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., (AS A SUCCESSOR TO SOKTAS INDIA PVT.LTD,.,), KOLHAPUR

ITA 206/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as the commission paid was for business purposes and genuineness was not in doubt. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as the facts regarding export incentives were not on record before the lower authorities.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs SMT LATA PRAKASH POPHALE, PUNE

ITA 566/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The CIT(A) found that the assessee had actually claimed deduction under Section 54, not Section 54F, and that all necessary documents were filed before the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee satisfied the conditions for Section 54 deduction.

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), PUNE

ITA 756/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy, being an incentive for industrial development in backward areas, is capital in nature and not a revenue receipt. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), PUNE

ITA 757/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy, being an incentive for industrial development in backward areas, is capital in nature and not a revenue receipt. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, PUNE vs PARAG MILK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

ITA 488/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy, being an incentive for industrial development in backward areas, is capital in nature and not a revenue receipt. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

M/S SUKHWANI PROMOTORS AND BUILDERS,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), PUNE

ITA 301/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's view on taxing unsold flats as stock-in-trade was a possible view, and thus the PCIT could not invoke section 263. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had failed to conduct a necessary inquiry regarding interest on TDS, making the assessment order erroneous on that point.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, PUNE vs PARAG MILK FOODS PVT.LTD, PUNE

ITA 489/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy, being an incentive for industrial development in backward areas, is capital in nature and not a revenue receipt. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SURESH GOVIND BHOI,KOLHAPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), KOLHAPUR

ITA 375/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit reports due to the medical illnesses of the assessee and their Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was directed to be deleted.

SURESH GOVIND BHOI,KOLHAPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), KOLHAPUR

ITA 374/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit reports due to the medical illnesses of the assessee and their Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was directed to be deleted.

RAMCHANDRA BHAGWANRAO DESHMUKH,NANDED vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 317/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the complexity of the electronic filing system is not a valid reason for substantial delay in filing TDS statements. Timely filing of TDS statements is crucial for efficient tax administration and processing of returns.

ANOOP GOPIKISHAN JAJU,AURANGABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE, JALNA

ITA 538/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's name appeared in incriminating material indicating payment of on-money, and the assessee failed to provide any explanation or source for these funds. The authorities were justified in confirming the addition.

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 54/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact clause under Section 270A(2) and Section 270A(9) that triggered the penalty for under-reporting and misreporting. This failure violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE, JALNA vs SANJAY DEVENDRAPARSAD RAI, JALNA

ITA 801/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's admission of sufficient cash withdrawals to explain the deposits meant no addition was warranted. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

MR ASHOK KHIMRAJ JAIN,NANDUBAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 154/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's observation that the AO failed to make proper inquiries was incorrect, as the AO had conducted due inquiry regarding the cash balance. The revisionary order was quashed as unsustainable.

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 55/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact clause under Section 270A(2) and Section 270A(9) that triggered the penalty for under-reporting and misreporting. This failure violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

MAMTA YASPAL KATARIA,AHEMDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), PUNE

ITA 443/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: Heard22 Jun 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

DARBAR SACHKHAND SAHEB CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 445/PUN/2023[-]Status: Heard22 Jun 2023Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to point out any specific adverse material against the genuineness of the activities or compliance with other laws. The assessee had provided necessary details and photographs of its activities.

JAIN OSWAL YUVAK SANGH,AHMEDNAGAR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIION), PUNE

ITA 447/PUN/2023[-]Status: Heard22 Jun 2023Remanded

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed ex parte and the assessee claimed inadequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

AKANSHA SOCIAL WELFARE AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (TRUST),AKOLA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 657/PUN/2023[-]Status: Heard22 Jun 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the assessee's submissions before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

AKANSHA SOCIAL WELFARE AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (TRUST),AKOLA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 656/PUN/2023[-]Status: Heard22 Jun 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the assessee's submissions before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

DARBAR SACHKHAND SAHEB CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 444/PUN/2023[-]Status: Heard22 Jun 2023Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to point out any specific adverse material against the genuineness of the activities or compliance with other laws. The assessee had provided necessary details and photographs of its activities.