ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal held that since the additional income was offered to tax under the head 'Income from business' and accepted as such by the Assessing Officer, Section 115BBE was not applicable. The income should be taxed at normal rates.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of its claims.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the allowability of the expenditure after considering the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court Bench at Aurangabad had decided the issue in favour of the Revenue in the case of Shivaji Rao. Therefore, the interest income was taxable.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of its claims.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the anonymous donations received by the assessee trust qualified for exclusion under Section 115BBC(2) of the Act. Therefore, these donations were not taxable under Section 115BBC(1).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was unaware of notices issued by the CIT(Exemption) and had not responded. In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence in support of its claims.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was unaware of notices issued by the CIT(Exemption) and had not responded. In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 143(1) regarding proposed adjustments was not followed. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer/CPC to issue notice of proposed adjustment before processing the return.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2011-12. Both assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex parte, hence the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal condoned the long delay in filing the appeals, citing relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while cooperative banks are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4) after 2007, this does not affect the eligibility of a cooperative society for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from deposits with a cooperative bank.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy was granted for making capital investment in expansion of the industrial unit. Therefore, it was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax as revenue. The authorities below were not justified in treating it as a revenue receipt.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2011-12. Both assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex parte, hence the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal condoned the long delay in filing the appeals, citing relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the long delay in filing the appeals, citing relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to file necessary documents and be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to file all necessary details before the lower authorities.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present documentary evidence before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file supporting evidence.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify which limb of Section 270A(9) was applicable for levying the penalty. Following previous ITAT decisions, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by unilaterally choosing one piece of evidence (the proprietor's return) over another (the confirmation of advance) without properly investigating the discrepancy. The addition was considered wrongly made.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

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

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present documentary evidence before the CIT(A) and that such evidence is required. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The assessee filed a withdrawal letter requesting to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that it would be just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the issues of royalty expenses and legal/professional fees had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in earlier assessment years. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the primary issue of its status as a trust was resolved in its favour. The matter of expenditure disallowances was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the primary issue of its status as a trust was resolved in its favour. The matter of expenditure disallowances was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the primary issue of its status as a trust was resolved in its favour. The matter of expenditure disallowances was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the primary issue of its status as a trust was resolved in its favour. The matter of expenditure disallowances was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the primary issue of its status as a trust was resolved in its favour. The matter of expenditure disallowances was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a reasonable and effective opportunity to be heard and comply with the requirements.

The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal found that incriminating material was indeed seized under section 132 of the Act, as referred to in the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to provide evidence to the contrary, thus the AO's action in issuing notice under section 153A was held valid. For Ground No. 2, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the opening cash balance was Nil, as the assessee failed to provide any documents or specify the exact quantum of opening cash balance before the Tribunal or lower authorities. Regarding Ground No. 3, the Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 8 lacs had already been deleted by the CIT(A), rendering the ground infructuous and without a cause of action for the assessee to appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment made under Section 153A of the Act is not sustainable in law. The primary reason for this decision was the absence of any incriminating material found or seized during the search conducted on 27.09.2013. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which clarified that in cases of completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is unearthed during the search. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a 'filer' for the assessment year 2008-2009, as evidenced by a return filed on 30.09.2008, contrary to the Revenue's claim of the assessee being a 'non-filer'. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a survey action under Section 133A does not fall within the scope of 'search' as contemplated by Section 153A, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. Consequently, the impugned assessment dated 22.03.2016 was quashed. All other pleas were rendered academic.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and did not discuss the grounds of appeal on merit. Following the principle of natural justice, the case was set aside for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify which limb of section 270A(9) was applicable and did not demonstrate how the assessee's case fell within those clauses. Following previous decisions, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.