ITAT Pune Judgments — November 2023

MAJALGAON ART SCI & COMMERCE COLLEGE BEED,MAJALGAON vs ITO TDS WARD, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1109/PUN/2023[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the rectification application was indeed filed beyond the statutory limitation period as stipulated in Section 154(7) of the Act. Therefore, the rejection of the application by the lower authorities was justified.

SALASAR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INOCME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 59/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2020-21Remanded

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating all the disallowances and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The tribunal also clarified that employee's contribution to ESI and PF, if paid late, would be disallowed as per the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs M/S PARTHA MULTITRADE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 684/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the addition as protective and deleting it, as the assessment was substantive and the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68. The subsequent application of income does not amount to double taxation.

VINOBA BHAVE GRAMVIKAS PRATISHTHAN,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1093/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence, the Income Tax Act is a welfare legislation. Therefore, a final opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case and supporting documents.

ALUMINIUM PROFILES LIMITED,PUNE vs THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI, PUNE

ITA 1121/PUN/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had no opportunity to contest its case due to non-compliance with notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the NFAC for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessee to comply with future notices.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs M/S PARTHA MULTRITRADE INDIA PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS SWIFT VENTURES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 683/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the addition as protective and deleting it, as the assessment was substantive and the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68. The subsequent application of income does not amount to double taxation.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs M/S PARTHA MULTITRADE INDIA PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS SWIFT VENTURES PVT LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 682/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the addition as protective and deleting it, as the assessment was substantive and the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68. The subsequent application of income does not amount to double taxation.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD vs M/S PARTHA MULTITRADE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 685/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the addition as protective and deleting it, as the assessment was substantive and the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68. The subsequent application of income does not amount to double taxation.

M/S BHUJBAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1001/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the NFAC for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present its case and file evidence.

VINOBA BHAVE GRAMVIKAS PRATISHTHAN,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1094/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence, the Income Tax Act is a welfare legislation. Therefore, a final opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case and supporting documents.

SWA. MA. AAM. SHIVAJIRAO BAPU NAGAWADE MEDICAL FOUNDATION,AHMEDNAGAR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 1166/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply, decided to grant one more opportunity for rectification. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

MAHESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1140/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The revisional order passed by the CIT under Section 263 was set aside.

SHRI MAHANT TAPONIDHI TATAMGIRI MAHARAJ DEVASTAHAN TRUST,SATARA vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 768/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of issuing a show-cause notice before rejecting the application and cancelling the provisional registration. This procedural lapse deprived the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to refute the negative findings.

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1106/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of proper representation before the CIT(A) and the repeated adjournments. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file supporting evidence.

DEMAG CRANES AND COMPONENTS GMBH,PUNE vs ACIT(IT)CIRCLE 1, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1115/PUN/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without adjudicating the matter in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

ASSOCIATION OF OTOLARYNGOLOGISTS AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1111/PUN/2023[--]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2023Remanded

The tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications in violation of the principle of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and refute negative observations.

M/S. PNG BROTHERS,PUNE vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE

ITA 1153/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on their merits and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

ASSOCIATION OF OTOLARYNGOLOGISTS AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1112/PUN/2023[--]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and refute negative observations.

M/S. KUWAD AND SONS,PUNE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), PUNE

ITA 728/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence like purchase invoices to support their revised stock valuation. The AO had not adequately rebutted these claims or verified the cost of purchase. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

SUBHASH CHOWK URBAN CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,JALGAON vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), JALGAON

ITA 1042/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments in co-operative banks, as these banks are still considered co-operative societies. The Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow the deduction.

SHRI TRIMBAKESHWAR DE vs THAN TRUST,NASHIK

ITA 888/PUN/2022[-]Status: Disposed20 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to refute the negative findings before rejecting the application and cancelling the provisional registration. This violated the principles of natural justice.

M/S K.D.PATIL & CONSTRUCTION,PANVEL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

ITA 899/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Nov 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that they did not have sufficient time to present their case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

ZAINAB ABBAS LOKHANDWALA,PUNE vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), PUNE

ITA 1087/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed16 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in computing the delay in filing the appeal by using the AO's order date instead of the service date. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.

M/S WATERFRONT HOUSING & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1100/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Nov 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure on borrowed capital for acquiring property is allowable as a deduction under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, not as a cost of acquisition. Therefore, the disallowance was justified.

M/S. P.P. GOGAD,NASHIK vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK

ITA 698/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4,29,99,450/- as the revenue failed to rebut the findings. However, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,71,30,720/- due to the assessee's failure to provide cogent evidence for the genuineness of the expenditure for certain subcontractors.

MR GANESH RAMBHAV PAKHE,AURANGABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1097/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: Heard14 Nov 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that a revised return filed after a belated original return was invalid under the pre-substituted Section 139(5). Therefore, the assessment based on the invalid revised return was illegal.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK vs M/S. P. P. GOGAD, NASHIK

ITA 686/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4,29,99,450/- as the revenue failed to rebut the findings. However, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,71,30,720/- due to the assessee's failure to provide cogent evidence for the genuineness of the expenditure for certain subcontractors.

DCIT, PUNE vs M/S. PURPLE DEVELOPERES, PUNE

ITA 1059/PUN/2010[2006-07]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2023AY 2006-07Dismissed

The ITAT Pune Bench held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The tribunal's jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer's office, not the assessee's.

SHREE GANESH SHIKASHAN SANSTHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1095/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to furnish required documents and hence remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs SHRI NITIN RAMDEOJI LOHIA, NASHIK

ITA 1408/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire bogus purchase disallowances did not need to be revived. A lump sum disallowance of 6% on bogus purchases was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs SHRI NITIN RAMDEOJI LOHIA, NASHIK

ITA 1407/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2023AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire bogus purchase disallowances did not need to be revived. A lump sum disallowance of 6% on bogus purchases was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs SHRI NITIN RAMDEOJI LOHIA, NASHIK

ITA 1409/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire bogus purchase disallowances did not need to be revived. A lump sum disallowance of 6% on bogus purchases was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

SHREE GANESH SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1096/PUN/2023[-]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2023Remanded

The tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to furnish required evidence and that the rejection was based on technicalities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3, AURANGABAD vs AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP, AURANGABAD

ITA 2193/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed9 Nov 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting the assessee's retracted affidavit without calling for a remand report from the AO or conducting independent verification. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

SHRI MAHESH SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,LATUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1085/PUN/2023[--]Status: Disposed9 Nov 2023Remanded

The Tribunal noted that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and granted the assessee one more opportunity to rectify the defects. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.

SHRI SHIVJEET VIJAYSINGH GHATGE,KOLHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 900/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed8 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that he legally represents the estate of the deceased or has intermeddled with it, as required by the definition of 'legal representative'. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

CONSTRUCTION CATALYSERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1014/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details of the written-back liabilities to the NFAC to prove they should be excluded from turnover for concessional tax rate eligibility. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for further consideration.

DEEPAK PANDURANG GADRE,RATNAGIRI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1117/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's satisfaction was recorded, the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned, following the precedent in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT.

M/S ARCHWAY VENKATESHWARA ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs ITO, WARD 12(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1126/PUN/2023[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Nov 2023Remanded

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

THE NAGAR VACHANALAYA VITA,SANGLI vs INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, WARD- KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 999/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that tax is charged on income, which is arrived at after deducting eligible expenses from receipts. If exemption is denied, it is only the excess of receipts over deductible expenses that can be taxed.

NAYEEM ISMAIL KHAN,AURNGABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), AURANGABAD

ITA 1043/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

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 a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

THE NAGAR VACHANALAYA VITA,SANGLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD- KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1000/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that tax is charged on income, which is arrived at after deducting eligible expenses from receipts. If exemption is denied, it is only the excess of receipts over deductible expenses that can be taxed.

LATE JAYANT MANEKLAL WAGLE (L/H RAJLAXMI D PARULKAR),PUNE vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1018/PUN/2023[2005-06]Status: Disposed3 Nov 2023AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be initiated against the legal representatives of a deceased assessee. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Gowri, upheld by the Supreme Court.

HEMANT PADMAKAR CHAVAN,NASHIK vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1023/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not deal with the merits of the issues and that the assessment was framed under Section 144. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

ITA 692/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed2 Nov 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 14A was not sustainable due to the lack of recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. The issue regarding additional claim of deduction under section 90 was set aside for de-novo verification.

NANDKUMKAR JARAMAL WADHWA,JALNA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE, JALNA

ITA 871/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Nov 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18.50 lakh under Section 69 was justified as the assessee made unrecorded investments in the financial year. The timing of the addition is the year of making the investment, not when the sale deed is registered.

YOGESH BHOMRAJ PORWAL L/H OF SHRI BHOMRAJ CHANDANMAL PORWAL,PUNE vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

ITA 56/PUN/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The tribunal held that the right to appeal vests with the legal representative who represents the estate of the deceased. Since the appellant failed to prove they represented the estate, the appeal lacked the necessary legal standing.

DATTATRAY BHIMRAO MASKE,AURANGABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEED

ITA 1054/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

LALSAB BANDU MULANI,RATNAGIRI vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1084/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that it would be just and fair to set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back for a fresh hearing. The assessee was granted liberty to present fresh evidence.

RAMCHANDRA RAM REDDY,NASHIK vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

ITA 721/PUN/2023[1998-99]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2023AY 1998-99Allowed

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c) in the show cause notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the impugned penalty was deleted.