Loading ITAT cases…
2,983 tribunal orders from the Pune bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 2,983 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions under section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found for AY 2017-18, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 263. The PCIT also failed to properly deal with the assessee's contentions.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition as there was no document on record to prove the alleged investment or cash payment by the assessee. The onus was on the AO to prove the addition, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished Form 10E and the computation of income with the claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the claim of relief under Section 89(1) should also have been considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted TDS credit even if not reflected in Form 26AS, as the tax was deducted at source and the deductor failed to deposit it. The Tribunal also directed deletion of interest charged under Section 234A.
The Tribunal held that the statement recorded during the survey had evidentiary value. The assessee's claim of not completing the transaction and returning the advance was not substantiated with evidence and was considered an afterthought.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not decide the appeals on merits due to non-compliance and delay. The Tribunal restored both the quantum appeal and the penalty issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case with requisite details.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee go to the root of the matter regarding the land being agricultural. The Tribunal admitted these evidences and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to pay the tax and surcharge on the declared income under the IDS, 2016, the declaration was invalid, and the income was rightly treated as unexplained. The penalty was thus rightly levied as the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences furnished by the assessee were unreliable and an afterthought to justify the increase in capital. The assessee failed to substantiate the huge increase in capital with credible evidence, and thus, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed against a non-existent entity, despite the revenue's knowledge of the merger, is a substantive illegality. Following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in City Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, which is not permissible. Following a High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not decide the appeals on merits due to non-compliance and delay. The Tribunal restored both the quantum appeal and the penalty issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case with requisite details.
The Tribunal noted that the consequential assessment resulted in no demand against the assessee, accepting the returned Nil income. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on its merits. The High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra was cited as precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal since the relief was obtained from the Assessing Officer. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a reasonable cause due to professional advice and a lack of opportunity afforded to the appellant. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a reasonable cause due to professional advice and a lack of opportunity afforded to the appellant. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were not directly or indirectly relatable to fixed assets, thus Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was not applicable. The subsidies were to be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for incorrect claims in the ITR were justified.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were not directly or indirectly relatable to fixed assets, thus Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was not applicable. The subsidies were to be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for incorrect claims in the ITR were justified.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the issue is debatable and has travelled up to the Supreme Court. The assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the addition was based on a difference of opinion regarding the allowability of the concession.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were not directly or indirectly relatable to fixed assets, thus Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was not applicable. The subsidies were to be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for incorrect claims in the ITR were justified.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were not directly or indirectly relatable to fixed assets, thus Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was not applicable. The subsidies were to be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for incorrect claims in the ITR were justified.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the disallowances for late payment of ESIC and PF, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding or reasoning, but the assessee's appeals for A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 were partly allowed, implying some relief or reconsideration on this aspect, though the specific outcome is not detailed. On the issue of the capital subsidy, the Tribunal held that the subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra under the PSI, 2007, is neither directly nor indirectly relatable to acquiring any fixed assets. Therefore, Explanation 10 to section 43(1) is not applicable. The Tribunal further held that the subsidy is to be treated as income under section 2(24)(xviii) on an annual basis as and when received. The Tribunal also found that the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1)(a)(ii) was justified due to apparent mistakes and mismatch of information in the assessee's Income Tax Return (ITR), where the assessee claimed the subsidy as exempt income but failed to provide necessary details in Schedule EI. The CIT(Appeals)'s finding on this point was reversed. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2020-21 were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not have been imposed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all material facts regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates to members in its return. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was on account of a debatable issue, which had travelled up to the Supreme Court. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgments in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. and Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that merely because a claim made by the assessee is not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when all facts were disclosed and the issue was debatable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC confirming the penalty was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not claimed any exempt income under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act in its return of income, nor had such details been filed before the AO. The assessee's counsel admitted that these details were not filed with the AO. The issue of exempt income was not examined by the AO. While the CIT(A) found that the cost of land appeared under current assets, the moot question regarding the claim of exempt income from land acquisition remained. The Tribunal noted that many documents were not placed before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issues to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO is to examine whether the income from land acquisition issuing TDR is eligible for exemption under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, whether the cost of land acquired by PCMC has been booked in the regular books of account, and the transaction of sale of TDRs and allowing the cost of acquiring such TDR. The AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider documents filed for the first time before the Tribunal and written submissions. The impugned order was set aside, and the grounds of appeal and cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the crucial legal ground regarding the limitation period for issuing the Section 148 notice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of all grounds, particularly the limitation issue, providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not imposable. The Tribunal noted that the issue of addition on account of the sale of sugar at concessional rates to members was a debatable one, having travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal reasoned that merely because an assessee claims an expenditure which is not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If the revenue's contention were accepted, every return where a claim is not accepted would invite penalty, which is not the intent of the legislature. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, emphasizing that an inadvertent or bona fide error does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal set aside the penalty order and directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 68,32,010/-. Ground No. 1, regarding the void ab initio proceedings, was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the issue is debatable and has travelled up to the Supreme Court. The assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the addition was based on a difference of opinion regarding the allowability of the concession.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the issue is debatable and has travelled up to the Supreme Court. The assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the addition was based on a difference of opinion regarding the allowability of the concession.
The Tribunal decided on two primary issues. Firstly, concerning the disallowances for late deposit of PF/ESI, the CIT(Appeals) had affirmed the AO's action, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on this specific point for the assessee's appeals, but the overall result suggests it was not fully allowed. Secondly, on the issue of the subsidy, the Tribunal held that the subsidy received from the Government of Maharashtra under PSI, 2007, was neither directly nor indirectly relatable to acquiring any fixed assets. Therefore, Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was not applicable. The Tribunal ruled that the total subsidy received is to be treated as income for the year under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the adjustment made by CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) due to apparent mistakes in the assessee's ITR, where the assessee claimed the subsidy as exempt income but failed to provide necessary details in Schedule EI, and also credited the subsidy to the profit and loss account while reducing it from asset cost for depreciation purposes in the tax computation. The CIT(Appeals)'s finding on the subsidy issue was reversed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the issue is debatable and has travelled up to the Supreme Court. The assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the addition was based on a difference of opinion regarding the allowability of the concession.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the issue is debatable and has travelled up to the Supreme Court. Since the assessee had provided all details and the issue of concessional sale was a debatable one, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the capital subsidy received by the assessee from the Maharashtra Government under the PSI, 2007, is taxable as a revenue receipt under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that the subsidy was not directly or indirectly relatable to the acquisition of any fixed assets, rendering Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) inapplicable. The subsidy was granted to encourage business and profit generation, thus falling within the definition of income. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) were justified due to apparent mistakes in the assessee's Income Tax Return (ITR), where the subsidy was claimed as exempt income in one schedule but not detailed in the schedule for exempt income. The audited financial statements also showed the subsidy credited to the profit and loss account, not reducing the cost of assets. The disallowances for delayed EPF/ESI payments were upheld, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and the appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were not directly or indirectly relatable to fixed assets, thus Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was not applicable. The subsidies were to be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for incorrect claims in the ITR were justified.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was bad in law as it confirmed an addition that was not made by the Assessing Officer and without any notice for enhancement. The CIT(A) had not properly read the assessment order.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. The primary reason for dismissal was the complete non-appearance of the assessee on multiple hearing dates, including the final hearing. Consequently, the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of business expenses by filing requisite details, basis, or documentary evidence. This failure led the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO. Since no contrary view was presented by the assessee before the Tribunal either, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee's appeal will be dismissed if it fails to appear and present its case, and its claims remain unsubstantiated and uncontroverted by the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal noted that it had previously decided a similar appeal for the assessee for the same assessment year, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs.10 lakhs on an adhoc basis. Following this precedent, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. The primary reason for dismissal was the complete non-appearance of the assessee on multiple hearing dates, including the final hearing. Consequently, the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of business expenses by filing requisite details, basis, or documentary evidence. This failure led the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO. Since no contrary view was presented by the assessee before the Tribunal either, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee's appeal will be dismissed if it fails to appear and present its case, and its claims remain unsubstantiated and uncontroverted by the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. The primary reason for dismissal was the complete non-appearance of the assessee on multiple hearing dates, including the final hearing. Consequently, the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of business expenses by filing requisite details, basis, or documentary evidence. This failure led the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO. Since no contrary view was presented by the assessee before the Tribunal either, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an assessee's appeal will be dismissed if it fails to appear and present its case, and its claims remain unsubstantiated and uncontroverted by the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in its order dated 13.10.2025, allowed the assessee's Writ Petition. The Court quashed and set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 07.03.2025 passed in MA No.194/Pun/2023. Consequently, the original order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.464/Pun/2021 dated 20th September 2022, which had allowed the assessee's appeal, was restored. The High Court clarified that this order does not preclude the Revenue from challenging the original ITAT order dated 20th September 2022 under Section 260A of the IT Act, if otherwise entitled in law. Following the High Court's order, the present appeal before the ITAT was rendered infructuous and was accordingly dismissed.