ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2023

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.

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.

M/S SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE,NASHIK vs ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

ITA 92/PUN/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to fulfill the statutory conditions under Section 80-IA(4)(i)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of the deduction by the lower authorities was upheld.

M/S SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE,NASHIK vs ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

ITA 97/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to fulfill the statutory conditions under Section 80-IA(4)(i)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of the deduction by the lower authorities was upheld.

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

ITA 661/PUN/2023[2013-14(26Q-Q2)]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023Allowed

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the period in question was not permissible as the relevant amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for such levy, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the orders upholding the fee were not justified.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE vs M/S. B U BHANDARI TEMPO (DEPT), PUNE

ITA 161/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's conclusion of no business activity was contrary to facts, as established in the assessee's own case for the prior assessment year. Therefore, the disallowance of expenditure was not justified.

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

ITA 663/PUN/2023[2013-14(24Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023Allowed

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the period in question was not permissible as the relevant amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for such levy, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the orders upholding the fee were not justified.

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

ITA 660/PUN/2023[2013-14(24Q-Q2)]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023Allowed

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the period in question was not permissible as the relevant amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for such levy, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the orders upholding the fee were not justified.

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

ITA 664/PUN/2023[2013-14(24Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023Allowed

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the period in question was not permissible as the relevant amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for such levy, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the orders upholding the fee were not justified.

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

ITA 662/PUN/2023[2013-14(26Q-Q3)]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023Allowed

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the period in question was not permissible as the relevant amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for such levy, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the orders upholding the fee were not justified.

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

ITA 665/PUN/2023[2013-14(26Q-Q4)]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023Allowed

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the period in question was not permissible as the relevant amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for such levy, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the orders upholding the fee were not justified.

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

ITA 666/PUN/2023[2014-15((24Q-Q1)]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023Allowed

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the period in question was not permissible as the relevant amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for such levy, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the orders upholding the fee were not justified.

INDOSPACE PARK CHAKAN 1 PHASE 2A PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 249/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries, examined the details provided by the assessee, and was satisfied with the genuineness of the share premium.

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

ITA 177/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4). However, the expenditure on the gratuity scheme was allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act.

NATURE INSTITUTE FOR WELFARE OF SOCIETY,OSMANABAD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 387/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous. The assessee had surrendered the earlier applications and filed new ones under the correct clauses.

NATURE INSTITUTE FOR WELFARE OF SOCIETY,OSMANABAD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 386/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous. The assessee had surrendered the earlier applications and filed new ones under the correct clauses.

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

ITA 458/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that there was no conclusive material to establish the receipt of on-money consideration by the assessee. The statement of a partner from the buyer's firm was not considered reliable as it did not admit to paying on-money to the assessee, and the assessee's partners denied receiving it.

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE, SANGLI vs ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

ITA 67/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that there was no conclusive material to establish the receipt of on-money consideration by the assessee. The statement of a partner from the buyer's firm was not considered reliable as it did not admit to paying on-money to the assessee, and the assessee's partners denied receiving it.

KONGNOLI SARVA SEVA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED,SANGLI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SANGLI

ITA 577/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order, holding that the rejection of an incorrect claim of deduction does not automatically amount to concealment of income. Furthermore, the appeal before the NFAC was rendered infructuous as the CIT(A) had already passed an order.

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA 1184/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that when purchases are bogus, only the profit element, not the full amount, should be added to income. The addition sustained at Rs. 6,60,106/- was found to be excessive and was directed to be deleted.

GURU GOBINDSINGHJI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, NANDED,NANDED vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 602/PUN/2023[-]Status: Heard19 Jun 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that the rejection without considering the reasonable cause for non-compliance requires reconsideration. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for two effective opportunities to comply with the requirements.

DONGARAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,SANGLI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 457/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's submissions that the business had been closed and taken over. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the supporting documents submitted by the assessee.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6, PUNE vs SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED, PUNE

ITA 2445/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim for leave encashment to the extent paid and to delete the disallowance made towards VRS expenditure. The Revenue failed to provide contrary material or controvert the settled legal position.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 588/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was based on an assessment order that was not in existence as the quantum appeals were restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 595/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was based on an assessment order that was not in existence as the quantum appeals were restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 592/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was based on an assessment order that was not in existence as the quantum appeals were restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 597/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was based on an assessment order that was not in existence as the quantum appeals were restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

CASTLEMAINE PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 576/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Heard19 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous judicial precedents, which allowed such deductions for cooperative societies. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 593/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was based on an assessment order that was not in existence as the quantum appeals were restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 589/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was based on an assessment order that was not in existence as the quantum appeals were restored to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

BALWANTPURAM SAMRAJYA L6 HIJK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,KOTHRUD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-2, PUNE

ITA 653/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable. It reasoned that the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view, and the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income from cooperative banks was covered by prior judicial precedents in favor of the assessee.

SHRI SANT DAMAJI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SOLAPUR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SOLAPUR

ITA 413/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that as per the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., if the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, a provision made for contribution to a research institute is to be considered as paid and allowed as a deduction.

KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINE EMPLOYEES CO- OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-2, PUNE

ITA 605/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was not erroneous. The interest income earned by the cooperative society from cooperative banks was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d).

MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PATHYAPUSTAK MANDAL KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 630/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the issue of eligibility of interest income for deduction under Section 80P was covered by judicial precedents in favour of the assessee, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

BALWANTPURAM SAMRAHYA L-7 (LMNOP) CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,KOTHRUD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-2, PUNE

ITA 654/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions which held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

VISHWANATH PHALOUTPADAK GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHA,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 644/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

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

SOCIETY FOR COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH, PUNE,PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 603/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the amount received was in lieu of admission and not a donation, thus affirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's contention that it was a donation was found to be without merit.

SACHIN PRABHAKAR BARBOLE,BARSHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 601/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the ex parte order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

VILAS BHAUSAHEV MORE,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(5), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 575/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that since both the assessment and the first appellate orders were passed without the assessee's participation, it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 647/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contributions does not allow for deduction as per Section 43B, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. It also upheld the denial of carry forward of business loss due to the return not being filed within the stipulated time under Section 139(1).

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 596/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

DILIP BHAGWAT PIMPLE,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 532/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that confirming the penalty before adjudicating the quantum appeal on merits is bad in law and violates the principles of natural justice. A penalty is an additional tax and cannot be levied without first determining the basic tax liability.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 587/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD vs M/S. EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD

ITA 1919/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the cash donations. The Tribunal held that the donations were sham and a device to launder undisclosed income, thus restoring the AO's assessment.

JANAHIT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHPEDHI LIMITED,PUNE vs PRINCIPLA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 521/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P was covered in favour of the assessee by judicial precedents. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's revision order was not sustainable.

EVEREST EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD,AURANGABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, EXEMTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 525/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the cash donations. The Tribunal held that the donations were sham and a device to launder undisclosed income, thus restoring the AO's assessment.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 590/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 591/PUN/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

MOHAN BANSILAL BHUTADA,BEED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(4), BEED, BEED

ITA 594/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Jun 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

RAVAT SAHAKARSAKHAR KARAKHANA LTD,SATARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SATARA

ITA 415/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed13 Jun 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid reasons for not filing submissions and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and adjudicate the matter afresh after the assessee files necessary details.