ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2024

The Tribunal held that it cannot adjudicate on the merits of a defective appeal. Following judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed in limine due to the appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide any positive evidence to prove the alleged cash purchases, especially after the assessee denied the transaction. The Tribunal found the addition unsustainable.

The tribunal 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 held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and does not have the power to dismiss them for non-prosecution. The Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) failed to verify facts and adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to add the gift amount as it was outside the original reasons for reopening the assessment. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the source of the gift to be genuine, being from the maturity of fixed deposits and received through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law as the assessee had paid the entire tax under the IDS-2016 scheme before the notice was issued. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that similar disallowances in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years were deleted by the co-ordinate benches. Following these precedents, the disallowances for software maintenance charges and leased line charges were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's ad-hoc bifurcation of profit into 50% agricultural and 50% non-agricultural lacked logical premise and rational reasoning. Furthermore, the NFAC's decision was found to violate the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing, specifically regarding video conferencing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the assessee regarding the share premium calculation and the discrepancy between projected and actual results. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal dismissed Ground 1 as not pressed. Regarding Ground 2 (unexplained cash in hand), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the opening cash balance of Rs. 12,64,039/-. The AO had called for a remand report, which also found no evidence. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to Rs. 6,81,115/- by allowing the benefit of the current year's available income of Rs. 7,09,485/- against the closing cash balance of Rs. 13,90,600/-. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this order and dismissed the ground. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed Ground 1 as not pressed. Regarding Ground 2 (income declared under Section 132(4)), the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any independent evidence. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Instruction dated 10.03.2003, which advises against making additions based solely on confessions without credible evidence. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,69,300/- was deleted. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2015-16 was partly allowed. The judgment also mentions that the appeal for AY 2013-14 was partly allowed, but the specific findings for that year are omitted in the provided text.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal dismissed Ground 1 as not pressed. Regarding Ground 2 (unexplained cash in hand), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the opening cash balance of Rs. 12,64,039/-. The AO had called for a remand report, which also found no evidence. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to Rs. 6,81,115/- by allowing the benefit of the current year's available income of Rs. 7,09,485/- against the closing cash balance of Rs. 13,90,600/-. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this order and dismissed the ground. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed Ground 1 as not pressed. Regarding Ground 2 (income declared under Section 132(4)), the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any independent evidence. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Instruction dated 10.03.2003, which advises against making additions based solely on confessions without credible evidence. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,69,300/- was deleted. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2015-16 was partly allowed. The judgment also mentions that the appeal for AY 2013-14 was partly allowed, but the specific findings for that year are omitted in the provided text.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal dismissed Ground 1 as not pressed. Regarding Ground 2 (unexplained cash in hand), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the opening cash balance of Rs. 12,64,039/-. The AO had called for a remand report, which also found no evidence. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to Rs. 6,81,115/- by allowing the benefit of the current year's available income of Rs. 7,09,485/- against the closing cash balance of Rs. 13,90,600/-. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this order and dismissed the ground. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal dismissed Ground 1 as not pressed. Regarding Ground 2 (income declared under Section 132(4)), the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any independent evidence. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Instruction dated 10.03.2003, which advises against making additions based solely on confessions without credible evidence. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,69,300/- was deleted. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2015-16 was partly allowed. The judgment also mentions that the appeal for AY 2013-14 was partly allowed, but the specific findings for that year are omitted in the provided text.

The Tribunal noted that the Department had no objection to the withdrawal application. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal is modifying its previous order to include the attendance of the assessee's representative. The appeal concerns the deduction for interest income earned by a cooperative society from its members, an issue that has been settled by numerous prior decisions.

The Tribunal admitted the bank certificate as additional evidence, noting it was not available before the lower authorities. It found that only Rs. 3,72,500 of the total deposit were SBN notes. The Tribunal set aside the addition for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred by accepting additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer and by not following Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the dates mentioned in the relied-upon documents (03.07.2011 and 31.10.2011) fall within AY 2012-13, not AY 2011-12. Furthermore, the name of the assessee did not appear on the relevant page of the diary, and the Assessing Officer lacked relevant material for the addition.

The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose statement was used against them violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions based on such statements were set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the prevailing circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose statement was used against them violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions based on such statements were set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide sufficient time for the appellant to comply with the notices, violating principles of natural justice. The time given was less than a week, contrary to CBDT's SOP.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to prove that the provisions for freight and IT support expenses were made on a scientific basis. Therefore, these provisions were not allowable as expenditure.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and found that the hearing notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email address, leading to non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act without corroborative evidence. The presumption under section 132(4A) is applicable only to the searched person and not to third parties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to decide an appeal on merits, even if it's an ex-parte order, and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The dismissal without considering the merits was contrary to settled law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and found that the hearing notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email address, leading to non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is a directory provision and not mandatory. Since the form was available with the CPC before processing the intimation, the claim for foreign tax credit should not be denied solely on the basis of late filing.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned due to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in initiating proceedings under Section 153A based on material found at another person's premises without following the procedure under Section 153C. Furthermore, the share buyback transaction pertained to a different assessment year.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with a cooperative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The ratio of the Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. judgment was distinguished for this specific type of income.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on deposits with other cooperative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as the assessee failed to make the claim in its original return of income, as mandated by Section 80A(5).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The assessment under Section 153A was quashed as no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises. Furthermore, on merits, the addition was not sustainable as the share applicants had provided sufficient documentation and the AO had not conducted further investigation to negate it.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's claim of not receiving notices, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the filing of the wrong appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed claimed the deduction in its original return, and the 'Zero' entry was a result of a technical glitch. The rectification application was permissible to correct this error, and the tax authorities were duty-bound to allow the correct entitlement.

The Tribunal has decided to modify its previous order to reflect the correct names of the representatives. The original order's substantive findings remain unchanged.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The previous orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with other cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. This is because the income is derived from investments held with another cooperative society.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was due to a typographical error and that the assessee had subsequently filed a fresh application. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the addition of the NPA provision would increase the assessee's business income, which would then qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, as per CBDT Circular No. 37/2016. Therefore, the PCIT's direction would be an academic exercise and not prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that for Section 43CA, if part of the consideration was received by cheque before the agreement date, the agreement value should be considered. Regarding the TDS issue, the Tribunal ruled that the payment was compensation for surrender of rights, not interest, thus no TDS obligation arose.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A)/NFAC had properly considered the data submitted by the assessee as per the directions of the JCIT. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the delay as the assessee failed to provide a sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the payment was voluntary and ex-gratia, not compensation as envisaged under Section 17(3)(i), as there was no obligation on the employer to pay. Therefore, it should not be treated as income taxable as profits in lieu of salary.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the calculation of differences between bank credits and P&L account entries, noting potential errors. Consequently, the Tribunal restored this specific issue to the AO for re-verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a credit cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from its members. The denial of deduction by the Assessing Officer was based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 80P(4).

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its business income in fixed deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Following the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investing its business income in fixed deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Following the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the COVID-19 period and the assessee's circumstances. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.