ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without adjudicating on the merits of the case and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without adjudicating on merits and in violation of Section 250(6). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not ensuring proper service of notices and violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that income from the shareholders' account in a life insurance company is part of the life insurance business and should be taxed accordingly, following High Court precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the issue of excess provision for tax.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice and adherence to principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee was directed to appear and file details without seeking adjournment.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notices and adherence to principles of natural justice. The case was set aside for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks as well as scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The assessee's claim was allowed in line with previous judgments.

The Tribunal held that income from the shareholders' account in a life insurance company is part of the life insurance business and should be taxed accordingly, following High Court precedents. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the issue of excess provision for tax.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not ensuring proper service of notices and violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not ensuring proper service of notices and violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the quantum addition and consequently set aside the penalty order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the interest and dividend income earned from the cooperative bank was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This decision was based on a previous ruling by the ITAT in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year with identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the specific documentation requirements of Rule 128(8)(ii)(c) for a portion of its FTC claim. The Assessing Officer also failed to conduct necessary inquiries. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside an issue for verification to the Assessing Officer, as per Section 251(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) must decide the appeal on merits after making necessary inquiries.

The Tribunal held that since the lands were transferred at cost price without revaluation and only through journal entries, it did not constitute a transfer giving rise to capital gains. The Supreme Court's decision in Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills was distinguished as it involved revalued assets.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that neither AS-9 nor Section 43CB applied to the assessee's case. The project commenced before the relevant cut-off dates, and the transitional provisions of ICDS-3 supported the use of the assessee's regular method.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the deduction amounting to Rs. 17,43,095/- (Rs. 9,40,000/- for reversal of provision of rent equalization and Rs. 8,03,095/- for amalgamation expenses) was adequately discussed and justified by the CIT(A). The remaining amount was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's continuous illness and heart operation. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO's action under Section 154 was not justified as the issue of preliminary expenses was debated and not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the scope of limited scrutiny.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and decide the matter in accordance with law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO's action under Section 154 was not justified as the issue of preliminary expenses was debated and not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the scope of limited scrutiny.

The Tribunal held that since Form 3CFA was filed before the completion of proceedings under Section 143(1), the assessee should be allowed to avail the special tax rate. The order of the lower appellate authority was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce evidence of agricultural land ownership and income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the specific documentation requirements of Rule 128(8)(ii)(c) for a portion of its FTC claim. The Assessing Officer also failed to conduct necessary inquiries. Therefore, the PCIT's revision directions were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the exception for audit objections was removed in the latest CBDT circular. Following High Court precedents, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalties levied did not survive. Therefore, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessment proceedings are completed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act and had not dealt with the merits of the case.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating issues already decided by the ITAT in the previous round. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have restricted its decision to the limited purpose of verification as per the remand order.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on this matter.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating issues already decided by the ITAT in the previous round. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have restricted its decision to the limited purpose of verification as per the remand order.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating issues already decided by the ITAT in the previous round. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have restricted its decision to the limited purpose of verification as per the remand order.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalties levied did not survive. Therefore, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessment proceedings are completed.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalties levied did not survive. Therefore, the penalty appeals should also be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessment proceedings are completed.

The Tribunal held that the Form 10-IE filed on 10.10.2022 was much prior to the due date for AY 2023-24 and should have been considered. The assessee's claim for the New Tax Regime was valid and should have been granted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 43B is not applicable if the service tax and GST amounts were not actually received by the assessee from the contractee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for verification of this fact.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without referring the valuation to the DVO, as mandated by law and supported by judicial precedent. The case was remanded for proper valuation.

The Tribunal held that notional rent/deemed rent cannot be calculated on unsold flats/properties held as stock in trade prior to Assessment Year 2018-19. The introduction of Section 23(5) was prospective and did not apply to the period under consideration.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural delay. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), based on the provided affidavit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed that the assessee should be provided another opportunity to explain the cash deposits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication, with the CIT(A) to provide a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural delay. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was granted insufficient time to present its case. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with the responsibility on the assessee to prove its case.