ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2024

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order was not a speaking order as it failed to provide adequate reasons for not condoning the delay. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay petition.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also held that commission and interest income from MSEDCL bill collection activities are eligible for deduction under Section 80P as business income.

The Tribunal observed that Thane is not within the jurisdiction of the Pune Benches of the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT (Exemption) was not an appealable order under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in providing medical services on commercial principles, not for charitable purposes. The operation of a medical shop within the hospital, selling items at MRP with a small discount, and the high charges for services indicated a profit-making motive.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's explanation was not fully accepted, accumulation of past savings and household withdrawals could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lumpsum addition was upheld, and partial relief was granted.

The ITAT condoned the 607-day delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considering the exclusion period for COVID-19 and the principle of substantial justice. The ITAT directed the NFAC to take up the appeal for fresh adjudication on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without considering the assessee's contention that no permission is required for running a pre-primary school under the said Act. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The tribunal held that the NFAC failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and restore the appeal for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is required to frame points of determination and provide a detailed adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the matter required a remand as the assessee contended that no permission is required for running a pre-primary school under the said Act. The denial of 80G approval was also consequential to the 12AB registration.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, following its own precedent that information from the Sales Tax Department does not fall under an exception to the monetary limit for appeals. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned.

The Tribunal found that neither party's submissions were entirely acceptable. While the assessee failed to prove the source of her parents' income, the authorities also failed to prove anything adverse. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 12 lakhs was upheld out of the Rs. 30 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that while the cash deposits were made on the same day as property sale, the assessee failed to provide supporting documents for the deposits. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was confirmed, granting relief of Rs. 15 lakhs.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the gross profit at 2.5% considering the assessee's prior year profit margins. The addition under Section 69A was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessee responsible for proving the reconciliation of cash deposits with business turnover.

The Tribunal found that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) did not properly adjudicate the assessee's grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the claim of Rs. 14 lakhs from business was acceptable. However, the claim of Rs. 11.19 lakhs from family members lacked credibility. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 8 lakhs out of the Rs. 11.19 lakhs was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a disallowance or addition does not automatically attract a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). It noted the absence of independent findings by the lower authorities to establish concealment of taxable income, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products.

The Tribunal found that the lower appellate order was passed ex-parte and without properly adjudicating the assessee's contentions as required by law. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from investments made with a cooperative bank, as a cooperative bank continues to be a cooperative society. The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263.