ITAT Pune Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for returns processed prior to 01.06.2015 is not permissible. The amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled such levies, is prospective.

The Tribunal noted the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's request for documents and without referring to the same. While the assessee's letter was a request for information and not a formal objection, the AO should have addressed it. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without a speaking order on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowances related to business expenditure (Scholarship, Gifts, Festival Advance, Funds for Members) would increase business income eligible for Section 80P deduction. However, disallowances for delayed deposit of employee PF/ESI contributions are income from other sources and not eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delay in filing TDS returns processed under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015, is not permissible. The amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled such levy, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delay in filing TDS returns processed under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015, is not permissible. The amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled such levy, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delay in filing TDS returns processed under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015, is not permissible. The amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled such levy, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was unsustainable as it ignored the gross interest received and the TDS deducted thereon. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the full TDS claim.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delay in filing TDS returns processed under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015, is not permissible. The amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled such levy, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in determining the assessee's share at 50% when the sale deed clearly indicated a lesser share. The Tribunal also noted that the cost of acquisition and indexation benefits were not properly considered.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits. The CIT(A) is obligated to pass a speaking order and deal with the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb under sub-section (9) of Section 270A under which the penalty was levied. This failure renders the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is an additional income-tax levied on the company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the benefit of lower tax rates under the DTAA is not available for DDT paid by the company.

The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is an additional income-tax levied on the company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the benefit of lower tax rates under the DTAA is not available for DDT paid by the company.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not provide sufficient explanation to the lower authorities, the bank statements showed commission income with TDS deducted under Section 194H. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to submit evidence explaining the source of the cash and jewellery. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT did not consider the permanent 12A registration and did not provide a further opportunity to the assessee to submit documents regarding construction and other works. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not provide sufficient explanation to the lower authorities, the bank statements showed commission income with TDS deducted under Section 194H. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to pass a speaking order and did not deal with the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is an additional income-tax levied on the company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the benefit of lower tax rates under the DTAA is not available for DDT paid by the company.

The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is an additional income-tax levied on the company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the benefit of lower tax rates under the DTAA is not available for DDT paid by the company.

The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is an additional income-tax levied on the company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the benefit of lower tax rates under the DTAA is not available for DDT paid by the company.

The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is an additional income-tax levied on the company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the benefit of lower tax rates under the DTAA is not available for DDT paid by the company.

The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is an additional income-tax levied on the company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the benefit of lower tax rates under the DTAA is not available for DDT paid by the company.

The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 143(1) for disallowing a deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return of income. Such disallowance by way of a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1) is not permissible.

The Tribunal acknowledged the jurisdictional error and allowed the assessee's application to return the appeal. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to refile it before the correct jurisdictional bench.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including sales registers, purchase registers, and cash books, which were audited. The discrepancy in VAT returns was attributed to technical glitches, and the Annual VAT Return and VAT Audit Report supported the sales.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a deduction under Section 80P can only be allowed if it is claimed in the original return of income. Since the assessee failed to do so, the deduction cannot be granted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim of payments through banking channels and reasonable profit rate was noted, the lack of complete addresses and shared PANs indicated revenue leakage. Therefore, a lump sum disallowance was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC is discretionary and cannot be directed by higher authorities under Section 263. The failure to initiate penalty proceedings does not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the issue to the CIT for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a proper and fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to present its case and submit required documents.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication, citing lack of proper opportunity and technical difficulties. The assessee was directed to comply diligently with future notices.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that suppliers wrongly quoted the assessee's PAN instead of sister concerns' PAN for purchases made by sister concerns. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer, not the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer was in Mumbai, the Pune Bench lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, which had deleted similar disallowances. Therefore, the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not properly substantiate their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by considering a new source of income (net profit) not examined by the AO. Following Supreme Court precedent, the CIT(A) cannot travel beyond the assessment record to find new sources of income.