ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to file and prove all relevant facts.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence provided by the assessee and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was cautioned that the responsibility to file and prove facts lies with them.

The Tribunal held that an ad-hoc disallowance of depreciation, when purchases were not disallowed and books of accounts were not rejected, cannot be considered under-reporting of income due to misreporting under Section 270A(6). Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided details of unrecorded purchases at the time of the survey and the excess cash was offered as income, these amounts should not be taxed as deemed income. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the tax was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed one appeal as a duplicate and remanded the other back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) had not considered the assessee's submission about a completed project and did not provide further opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal held that a literal interpretation of Section 80G(5) proviso clause (iii) leads to absurdity when activities commence before provisional approval. They interpreted the clause to mean 'whichever is later' instead of 'whichever is earlier' for filing the application.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not framed points for determination or provided a detailed adjudication as required by law. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's rejoinder to the remand report. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to reconsider the matter after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit their rejoinder and be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's authorized person declared the additional income and claimed it as business income, and the Revenue did not raise any specific queries about the source of expenditure during the survey or assessment, the income should be taxed under the normal head of business income, not at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal dismissed one appeal as a duplicate and remanded the other back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) had not considered the assessee's submission about a completed project and did not provide further opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 11 and 12 should be available for pending assessment proceedings as per CBDT Circular No. 1/2015, provided the objects and activities remained the same. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's authorized person declared the additional income and claimed it as business income, and the Revenue did not raise any specific queries about the source of expenditure during the survey or assessment, the income should be taxed under the normal head of business income, not at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The CIT(A) held that the excess stock was part of the assessee's business stock and arose from business income. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding no evidence to rebut this and citing a High Court precedent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 11 and 12 should be available for pending assessment proceedings as per CBDT Circular No. 1/2015, provided the objects and activities remained the same. The appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling in a similar case. It held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The land was situated in a rural area, more than 8 kms from municipal limits, and thus not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.

The ITAT held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not maintainable because the original assessment order had merged with the ITAT's prior decision in the assessee's own case, which allowed the deduction. The tribunal also noted that the AO had adopted a plausible view, supported by High Court precedent.

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 Tribunal followed various judicial pronouncements supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that obtaining approval from the Joint Commissioner for reopening the assessment after four years was a mandatory procedural defect and not curable under Section 292B. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obligated to decide appeals on their merits, even in cases of ex-parte orders, and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and relied on the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications due to the medical camp activity not being in the MOA and the delayed filing of Form 10AB.

The Tribunal held that no addition was made in the assessment order as the assessee had already offered the difference of Rs. 7,41,750 in the return filed in response to the notice under section 148. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to decide the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Act and Rule 127(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the notices were not properly served on the appellant.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and relied on the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications due to the medical camp activity not being in the MOA and the delayed filing of Form 10AB.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake in computing the provision for bad and doubtful debts was bonafide, as it followed RBI norms. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A(6)(a) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not proportionately reducing the sale consideration for the reduced area and that a reference to the DVO under Section 43CA(2) and (3) is mandatory. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of brokerage expenses, considering it a routine business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even in case of ex-parte orders. The assessee needs another opportunity to present their case, especially considering their claim of being an agriculturist.

The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal and email is not a valid method of service as per the Income-tax Act and Rules. Therefore, the notices were not properly served on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income derived from its investments with cooperative banks, as cooperative banks are still considered cooperative societies. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to rebut the assessee's explanation that the excess stock was sourced from advances received from customers. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal presumed the source of investment to be explained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting it on merits. The condition of advance tax payment under Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable if the assessee claims no taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the literal interpretation of Section 80G(5)(iii) leads to an absurd result for trusts that commenced activities before provisional approval. It also ruled that notices sent via the ITBA portal are not valid service under Section 282(1).

The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal and email is not a valid method of service as per the Income-tax Act and Rules. Therefore, the notices were not properly served on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Pune Bench as the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's situs falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The impugned order was cryptic and lacked factual discussion.

The Tribunal found that notices were sent to an erstwhile consultant's email, not the assessee, and the assessee, being a senior citizen widow, was unaware. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit for regular approval under Section 80G(5)(iii). No statutory power exists to condone such delays.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's claim for telescoping benefits. Out of 12 instances of cash withdrawals examined, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention in two cases: Shri Ramesh Modi and M/s Chocolate Retail Private Limited. For Shri Ramesh Modi, an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 withdrawn as a loan was allowed to be reduced from the addition, as subsequent credit entries in his name exceeded this amount, preventing double taxation. For M/s Chocolate Retail Private Limited, only the credit amount of Rs. 4,80,000 for the year under consideration was allowed to be reduced, with the remaining benefit of Rs. 10,20,000 carried forward to subsequent assessment years. In total, the assessee received a relief of Rs. 19,80,000, and the remaining addition was confirmed. Grounds 4, 7, 11, and 12 were dismissed as not pressed. Ground 1 was dismissed as general.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)/NFAC's order to be cryptic and lacking discussion of the facts and relevant precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's claim for telescoping benefits. Out of 12 instances of cash withdrawals examined, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention in two cases: Shri Ramesh Modi and M/s Chocolate Retail Private Limited. For Shri Ramesh Modi, an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 withdrawn as a loan was allowed to be reduced from the addition, as subsequent credit entries in his name exceeded this amount, preventing double taxation. For M/s Chocolate Retail Private Limited, only the credit amount of Rs. 4,80,000 for the year under consideration was allowed to be reduced, with the remaining benefit of Rs. 10,20,000 carried forward to subsequent assessment years. In total, the assessee received a relief of Rs. 19,80,000, and the remaining addition was confirmed. Grounds 4, 7, 11, and 12 were dismissed as not pressed. Ground 1 was dismissed as general.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to present their case before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting the file back to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CPC processing under section 143(1) cannot go beyond the return filed. Since the claim for cost of indexation was made for the first time before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) cannot entertain a fresh claim that the CPC could not have considered, the CIT(A) rightly rejected the claim.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's claim for telescoping benefits. Out of 12 instances of cash withdrawals examined, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention in two cases: Shri Ramesh Modi and M/s Chocolate Retail Private Limited. For Shri Ramesh Modi, an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 withdrawn as a loan was allowed to be reduced from the addition, as subsequent credit entries in his name exceeded this amount, preventing double taxation. For M/s Chocolate Retail Private Limited, only the credit amount of Rs. 4,80,000 for the year under consideration was allowed to be reduced, with the remaining benefit of Rs. 10,20,000 carried forward to subsequent assessment years. In total, the assessee received a relief of Rs. 19,80,000, and the remaining addition was confirmed. Grounds 4, 7, 11, and 12 were dismissed as not pressed. Ground 1 was dismissed as general.