ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2010-11 was not sustainable in law because the Section 148 notice was issued before obtaining the mandatory approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO issued the notice on March 31, 2017, at 7:53 PM, and the approval was obtained on the same date at 10:06 PM, a fact that remained unrebutted. This procedural lapse, as per the ruling in Mrs. Amina Rasool vs. ITO, renders the entire reassessment invalid. Regarding the addition of Rs. 9,55,65,676/-, the Tribunal deleted it, finding that the additions were based on "dumb" documents and alleged admissions without any substantiation. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT vs. Umesh Ishrani, which held that presumptions under Section 292C are not applicable when seized material does not itself lead to a conclusion about undisclosed income. The Tribunal also referenced CBDT circulars disallowing additions based solely on admissions without corroborative evidence. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the Section 54F deduction claim for the on-money component, citing a catena of case law and the fact that the Revenue could not dispute the link between the on-money and the capital asset sale. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2010-11 was not sustainable in law because the Section 148 notice was issued before obtaining the mandatory approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO issued the notice on March 31, 2017, at 7:53 PM, and the approval was obtained on the same date at 10:06 PM, a fact that remained unrebutted. This procedural lapse, as per the ruling in Mrs. Amina Rasool vs. ITO, renders the entire reassessment invalid. Regarding the addition of Rs. 9,55,65,676/-, the Tribunal deleted it, finding that the additions were based on "dumb" documents and alleged admissions without any substantiation. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT vs. Umesh Ishrani, which held that presumptions under Section 292C are not applicable when seized material does not itself lead to a conclusion about undisclosed income. The Tribunal also referenced CBDT circulars disallowing additions based solely on admissions without corroborative evidence. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the Section 54F deduction claim for the on-money component, citing a catena of case law and the fact that the Revenue could not dispute the link between the on-money and the capital asset sale. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 on account of capital introduced by partners is not sustainable in the hands of the firm. The Tribunal also found no violation of Rule 46A regarding additional evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority's order lacked detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. It also appeared to treat the assessment proceedings as penalty proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reopening for AY 2010-11 was not sustainable in law because the Section 148 notice was issued before obtaining the mandatory approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO issued the notice on March 31, 2017, at 7:53 PM, and the approval was obtained on the same date at 10:06 PM, a fact that remained unrebutted. This procedural lapse, as per the ruling in Mrs. Amina Rasool vs. ITO, renders the entire reassessment invalid. Regarding the addition of Rs. 9,55,65,676/-, the Tribunal deleted it, finding that the additions were based on "dumb" documents and alleged admissions without any substantiation. The Tribunal relied on the decision in PCIT vs. Umesh Ishrani, which held that presumptions under Section 292C are not applicable when seized material does not itself lead to a conclusion about undisclosed income. The Tribunal also referenced CBDT circulars disallowing additions based solely on admissions without corroborative evidence. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the Section 54F deduction claim for the on-money component, citing a catena of case law and the fact that the Revenue could not dispute the link between the on-money and the capital asset sale. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal condoned the small delays in filing the appeals before the NFAC, citing sufficient cause due to medical treatment. The Tribunal emphasized a justice-oriented approach over hyper-technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should adopt a justice-oriented approach rather than a hyper-technical one. It condoned the small delays in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical treatment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejecting the adjournment application and deciding ex-parte was not justified. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for one more opportunity.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with other cooperative banks or non-scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance of this deduction by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with another cooperative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The issue is no longer res integra in light of various judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own capital to cover the interest-free loans. It also followed the principle of consistency, noting no such disallowance was made in prior years, to allow the appeal regarding excess interest paid.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits and overlooked that the property was sold by three persons. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the merits. The NFAC is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits.

The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on sub-contract expenses to 5% and the disallowance on other expenses to 5%. It also directed the AO to verify and allow credit for TDS if found correct.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order directing a de novo assessment was not sustainable as the consequential proceedings initiated under Section 263 had already been dropped. The assessee had succeeded in those proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the application was filed within the prescribed time limit, interpreting the provisions concerning provisional registration and commencement of activities harmoniously. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application on its merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with nationalized banks is attributable to its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption for gratuity and leave encashment on a proportionate basis, considering his tenure with the State Government and the PSU. The issue of unexplained investment in mutual funds was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal restored the unexplained loan additions to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of unexplained investment and interest income additions, upholding them in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that service of notices through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service as per the Income-tax Act and Rules. Therefore, the assessment and appellate orders were passed without proper notice and opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the unexplained loan additions to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of unexplained investment and interest income additions, upholding them in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's decision to dismiss the appeal without providing reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted for de novo disposal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication following the proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that service of notices through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service as per the Income-tax Act and Rules. Therefore, the assessment and appellate orders were passed without proper notice and opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the facts and evidence presented by the assessee, relying solely on the Assessing Officer's order. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication following the proper procedure.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had affirmed the addition without considering the DVO's valuation report. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) disallowing Chapter VIA deductions for late filing of returns had prospective effect from 01.04.2021. Since the assessment year was 2019-2020, the disallowance was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by prior withdrawals from matured fixed deposits. The Rs. 1,00,000 payment was a repayment of an advance received in an earlier financial year, not relevant to the current assessment year. The addition was therefore unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that parking spaces, being mandatory components of a housing project approved by local authorities, are an integral part of the housing project. Therefore, profits from their sale are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal restored the unexplained loan additions to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of unexplained investment and interest income additions, upholding them in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal restored the unexplained loan additions to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of unexplained investment and interest income additions, upholding them in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC did not provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant to explain the delay in filing the appeal, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the NFAC for de novo disposal.

The tribunal held that the NFAC should have dealt with the merits of the issue even in an ex parte order. Since the NFAC dismissed the appeal solely for non-prosecution without considering the merits, the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the NFAC's order was ex parte and the assessee was not properly heard, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in denying the claim under Section 80G. It noted that Section 80G deductions are considered at the stage of computing 'Total Taxable Income', and disallowing them merely because they form part of CSR would lead to double disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under section 148 and 142(1). The Assessing Officer proceeded to make an assessment based on the available information.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal on a technicality was hyper-technical and that the NFAC should have given the appellant an opportunity to cure the defect. The matter was remitted back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without proof of notice of hearing violated principles of natural justice. The NFAC failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority was justified in refusing to condone the delay as no sufficient and reasonable cause was provided for the period prior to March 25, 2020. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed that no appeal lies against an intimation under section 143(1) in the absence of any variation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, preventing the assessee from presenting evidence of the source of funds from a previous land sale.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposits with evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It was held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without properly verifying notice service and without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file.

The Tribunal held that the return and audit report were filed within the extended due date as per CBDT circular. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.