ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2024

The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to clarify doubts and overlooked the assessee's status as a Section 8 company with charitable objectives. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the late fee levied under Section 234E for the period prior to June 1, 2015, is bad-in-law. Following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court, Kerala High Court, and the ITAT Pune Bench, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fee.

The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction was incorrect. It relied on a co-ordinate bench's decision which stated that such disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) or (v) was not permissible for the assessment year in question, especially since the relevant amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) was prospective.

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, directing the legal representatives to first prove their status. The NFAC will then adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the late fee levied under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is bad in law. Following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court, Kerala High Court, and ITAT Pune Bench, the levy was quashed.

The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The tribunal decided to correct the mentioned section in its previous order. The correct section to be read is 249(4)(b) instead of 294(4)(b).

The Tribunal noted that the additions forming the basis of the penalty had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty no longer survived.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Section 153A for unabated years): For Smt. Kamal Ramdas Tarate, the Tribunal quashed the Section 153A assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, following PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., as no incriminating material relating to these years was found. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. For Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande, the Tribunal rejected the ground to quash Section 153A assessments for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15, finding that cash deposits were over and above declared turnover, and incriminating documents pertaining to jewellery and other matters were seized. The Tribunal held that the condition of 'unabated' years was not applicable in his case due to seized material. Issue 2 (Profit rate for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 18% (as upheld by CIT(A)) to 10% in the interest of justice, noting that lower authorities had not provided comparative instances for disturbing the profit rate. This ground was partly accepted. Issue 3 (Commission disallowance for Smt. Tarate, AY 2015-16): The Tribunal upheld the commission disallowance of Rs. 10,16,441/-, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim. This ground was declined. Issue 4 (Unpaid flat price, Smt. Tarate, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, noting that there was no seized material indicating actual payment by the assessee to Shri Prasad Giridhar Deshpande. Section 292C presumption did not apply as there was no payment. Issue 5 (Cash deposits, Shri Deshpande, AY 2012-13): The Tribunal directed that the addition of Rs. 13,25,400/- be assessed at a GP rate of 10%, acknowledging that the assessee could not prove the source of deposits and the Revenue could not rebut the inference of regular business activities. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 6 (Profit rate for Shri Deshpande, AYs 2013-14, 2014-15): The Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 10% for consistency with other orders. Issue 7 (Jewellery addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2013-14): The Tribunal restricted the addition of Rs. 6,66,775/- to the extent of actual payment of Rs. 3.74 lakhs, based on seized purchase vouchers and the assessee's claim. This appeal was partly allowed. Issue 8 (Loan addition, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,38,500/- for the alleged loan to Mr. Gaikwad family, as the assessee acknowledged the loan in a seized MOU dated 14.07.2015, and failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut the presumption under Section 292C. This ground was rejected. Issue 4 (Revisited - Unpaid flat price, Shri Deshpande, AY 2016-17): The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, adopting the same reasoning as in Smt. Tarate's case, as the addition had already been deleted for her. This appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to consider telescoping benefit in all consequential computations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without considering the submissions made by the assessee on the grievance portal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had again failed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and had not verified crucial facts regarding the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The order was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The tribunal 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 order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay were valid. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the detailed replies and submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not adjourning the hearing and in not deciding each ground of appeal by a speaking order. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the cash donations received for BDS course admissions constituted capitation fees, which is prohibited by law and contrary to public policy. Therefore, the trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice through the ITBA portal was not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Act. It also noted that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the merits of the additions even in an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was recalcitrant in pursuing the matter, having remained absent in initial assessment and appellate proceedings. Furthermore, the appeal was found to be time-barred with insufficient cause for delay.

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). This is because cooperative banks are also considered cooperative societies.

The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report (Form 10B) is not a mandatory condition and is curable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) was justified as the project was not completed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal also found that the prima facie adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was permissible in this case.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) was justified as the project was not completed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal also found that the prima facie adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was permissible in this case.

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio, as per Section 159 of the Income Tax Act and jurisdictional High Court rulings. Consequently, the reassessment order is also void, and procedural defects cannot cure this fundamental flaw.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as there was no finding of inaccurate particulars furnished. The deeming fiction under Section 69C cannot be extended to penalty proceedings to presume concealment.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) was justified as the project was not completed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal also found that the prima facie adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was permissible in this case.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was correct based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The statutory due date for payment of ESI and PF contributions prevails over the due date for filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI and PF contributions is justified. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. which states that the statutory due date for payment prevails over the return filing due date.