ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the AO regarding the excess sugarcane price and concessional sugar sales, despite opportunities. The issue of excess sugarcane price payment was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, while the disallowance for temporary shed write-off was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s approach unreasonable for not adjudicating the issues on merits. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s finding and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC did not discuss the issues on merits and confirmed the AO's order ex-parte, which was against statutory provisions. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT denied the application without providing sufficient time to respond, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT denied the application without providing sufficient time to respond, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and not penal. Considering the spirit of the provisions for trust registration and exemption, the Tribunal decided to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation without considering the prior physical proceedings and the merits of the case. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without considering the merits or the adjournment request. The CIT(Exemption) failed to adjudicate on whether the trust's objects were charitable and if its activities met Section 80G(5) requirements.

The Tribunal held that the AO correctly followed the ITAT's order in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. Since the AO adopted a legally possible view based on precedent, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous for the PCIT to invoke Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the corroborative circumstances for claiming the expenditure, despite filing documentary evidence. The assessee's claim for specific expenditure on a portion of land without full partition was also questioned.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 15,95,000/- made by the AO. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate that the impugned income was offered for taxation in subsequent years or that the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that cash in hand, appearing on the asset side of the balance sheet, cannot be treated as a 'credit in the books' and thus cannot be added under Section 68. The addition was therefore unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that deemed rent cannot be imposed on unsold flats which are treated as stock-in-trade. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. was followed.

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 PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the AO had taken a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that the IT expenses were not mere reimbursement as there was a mark-up involved. The assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to support its claim of reimbursement, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in cancelling the registration as the proceedings were based on the trust deed's covenants rather than actual activities. The Tribunal found no evidence that the trust's activities were not genuine or not in accordance with its objects.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under section 143(1) for late deposit of employees' share of PF and ESIC is justified as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) is not relevant for this purpose.

The Tribunal set aside the order of rejection and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to grant the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the period of seven days granted to the assessee was not reasonable, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration.

The tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest on NCDC loans and interest on late filing of EPF/GST returns. However, the issue of interest paid to Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the assessee's submissions regarding the source of funds from her deceased husband's account and the subsequent redeposit was not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for detailed verification.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to represent the case with all relevant documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) provided an unreasonably short period of time to respond to the notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 7 days, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that a mere excessive claim of expenditure deduction does not automatically attract penalty proceedings. The penalty was deleted as it was not a case of an altogether incorrect provision but an excessive claim that was subsequently reversed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to pursue other remedies, with a sympathetic consideration for any delay in filing those remedies.

The Tribunal held that the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. is confined to the powers of the Assessing Officer and does not restrict the powers of appellate authorities to entertain new claims. The NFAC erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to examine the claim.

The Tribunal held that the grievance regarding the condonation of delay in filing Form 10B cannot be addressed by the Tribunal. Only the CBDT has the power to condone such delays as per its circular.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 4, holding that the assessee was not required to recognize revenue as per the Percentage Completion Method for AY 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that a crucial condition of the ICAI Guidance Note is that at least 25% of the saleable project area must be secured by contracts or agreements with buyers. The AO's calculation of total area sold as 1913.44 sq.mtrs (28% of 6822 sq.mtrs) was based on figures that were contested. The assessee had submitted that the total saleable area was 1,24,162 sq.ft and total area sold up to 31.03.2016 was 30,781 sq.ft, which is less than 25%. The Tribunal found that even if the revised guidance note was considered, the assessee had not crossed the 25% sale threshold. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to recognize revenue under the Percentage Completion Method. The Tribunal also allowed grounds 2 and 3, stating that the assessee had followed a recognized method (Project Completion Method) and no defect was pointed out by the AO in the books of accounts. The Department could not insist on the Percentage Completion Method when the assessee had not crossed the threshold. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the coordinate bench in S.S.Group Vs. ACIT and directed the AO to delete the addition. Grounds 5, 6, and 7 were dismissed as academic.

The Tribunal held that the application was filed within the permissible time limit, interpreting the statutory provision to avoid absurdity. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to verify the assessee's eligibility on merits, providing an opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the application was filed within the prescribed time limit, interpreting the relevant provisions to avoid absurdity. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the application on its merits and grant an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the multiple interlude notices issued by the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable time for compliance, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The proceedings were considered bad in law due to lack of effective notice and reasonable opportunity.

The tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the ex parte orders. The matters were remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the ex parte orders. The matters were remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee 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 assessee was granted an opportunity to present her case and lead fresh evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order and remitted 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.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was a violation of natural justice as there was no proof of hearing notice. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering that both prior orders were passed ex parte, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted 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 found it just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.