ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2024

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 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 For Shri Ramesh Modi, an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 withdrawn as a loan was allowed to be reduced from the addition, as subsequent credit entries in his name exceeded this amount, preventing double taxation.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.

The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal by the Revenue for the same assessment year had already been disposed of. Therefore, the current appeal was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the NFAC. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to provide necessary material to substantiate the remaining addition.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not consider the assessee's detailed submissions and rebuttal. It was held that the matter deserved to be set aside and restored to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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

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

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It further held that interest income from cooperative banks/scheduled banks partakes the character of business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was based on surmises and suspicion, lacking a proper inquiry and tangible material. The reasons for reopening were vague and far-fetched.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was no longer in existence due to being struck off. Therefore, the appeal filed by the company was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not consider the assessee's detailed submissions and rebuttal. It was held that the matter deserved to be set aside and restored to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 11 exemption is not available for the assessment year 2018-19 as the trust did not have the requisite registration under Section 12AA of the Act during that period. The Tribunal also noted that the denial of exemption originated from the intimation under Section 143(1) and not the assessment order under Section 143(3).

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeals and decide the matters on merit, following its own precedent in similar cases.

The Tribunal corrected the typographical error in its order dated 10.07.2024. The date of hearing and pronouncement has been rectified to 10.07.2024.

The Tribunal corrected the typographical error in its order dated 10.07.2024. The date of hearing and pronouncement has been rectified to 10.07.2024.

The Tribunal corrected the typographical error in its order dated 10.07.2024. The date of hearing and pronouncement has been rectified to 10.07.2024.

The Tribunal found that the issue of setting off brought forward and current year losses was a factual matter. The lower authorities had not properly considered these losses.

The Tribunal corrected the typographical error in its order dated 10.07.2024. The date of hearing and pronouncement has been rectified to 10.07.2024.

The Tribunal held that a concession made by the authorized representative before the AO cannot preclude the assessee from agitating the same issue in appeal. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it was held that advancing funds to a wholly-owned subsidiary for business purposes is for commercial expediency, and no disallowance of interest is warranted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should not have presumed a delay without verifying the actual date of service of the assessment order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC to verify the assessment records and determine if there was a delay.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeals and decide the matters on merit, following its own precedent in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in invoking Section 249(4)(b) as there was no taxable income prior to the AO's additions, hence no advance tax liability. The matter was remanded for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax as there was no undisputed admitted income. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for decision on merits.

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

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that notices were not validly served on the assessee as they were sent through the ITBA portal, which is not a prescribed method. Furthermore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits, even if ex parte, and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs.Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) was cited.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to conduct a thorough comparative analysis of the assessee's financial records for the relevant assessment years. The conclusion that the cash balance was unrealistic was based on human probability rather than judicious exercise.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings due to non-receipt of notices. To provide a fair opportunity, the case was set aside and remanded back to the first appellate authority for a de-novo decision.

The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing the Audit Report under Rule 19AB is directory, not mandatory. Since the report was available when the return was processed, no prejudice was caused to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(ii) for belated remittance of PF/ESI contributions was justified as it was an 'incorrect claim' apparent from the return. The contention regarding the tax audit report was not accepted as it was raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee no longer felt aggrieved due to the favorable order from the CIT(A). The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make a reference to the Valuation Officer without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The additions were based solely on the Valuation Officer's report, which was not sustainable as the assessee's books were not found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that deduction for employees' share of PF/ESI contribution is allowed only if deposited before the statutory due dates under the respective acts. Since the assessee deposited it after the specified dates, the disallowance was sustained.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate its case by producing the Fixed Deposit holders and relevant details. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make a reference to the Valuation Officer without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The additions were based solely on the Valuation Officer's report, which was not sustainable as the assessee's books were not found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the additions of Rs. 94,63,000 and Rs. 22,00,000 on account of reversed sales, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be fair and reasonable. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the TDS credit of Rs. 80,000, as the income was offered to tax in a subsequent year.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the additions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to consider and decide the impugned additions by passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly rejected the claim for refund of excess DDT based on a Special Bench decision of the Tribunal. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) orders suffered from non-adjudication of legal grounds and failure to provide reasoned decisions, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for de-novo adjudication.