ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits, citing the Bombay High Court. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 were not sustainable. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee was not required to capitalize the interest expenditure. It was held that the inventory, including open land and units under construction, did not fall within the definition of 'qualifying asset' as per ICDS IX. The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed the percentage of completion method for revenue recognition, and capitalization of borrowing costs ceases when substantially all activities necessary for intended sale are complete. Since the development plan itself indicated completion of such activities, capitalizing interest was not warranted. Therefore, the assessee rightly debited the interest to the Profit and Loss Account. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of reopening based on the *Hexaware Technologies* decision was pending before the Supreme Court, but the reassessment proceedings were quashed on other grounds, and the addition on merits was deleted. For AY 2016-17, the grounds raised by the Revenue were identical to those for AY 2014-15, and following the same reasoning, they were dismissed. The Tribunal did not decide the ground regarding the Supreme Court's engagement with the *Hexaware Technologies* case.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal due to a clerical error in selecting the jurisdiction. As there was no objection from the Department's Representative, the request was allowed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the reassessment proceedings were independently initiated by the AO and not based on any prior unfavorable decision. The Tribunal also found no error in treating the loan as deemed dividend given the assessee's significant shareholding in both companies.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds 1, 2, and 3 as general. It dismissed ground 4, stating it lacked the power to condone the delay. Ground 5 was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the issue of deduction to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the current appeal as the assessee is no longer pursuing it due to the application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee is free to file a recall application if their scheme application is rejected.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal because they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. It was clarified that the assessee could move for recalling if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal, noting that the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the reassessment proceedings were independently initiated by the AO and not based on any prior unfavorable decision. The Tribunal also found no error in treating the loan as deemed dividend given the assessee's significant shareholding in both companies.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 were not sustainable. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee was not required to capitalize the interest expenditure. It was held that the inventory, including open land and units under construction, did not fall within the definition of 'qualifying asset' as per ICDS IX. The Tribunal noted that the assessee followed the percentage of completion method for revenue recognition, and capitalization of borrowing costs ceases when substantially all activities necessary for intended sale are complete. Since the development plan itself indicated completion of such activities, capitalizing interest was not warranted. Therefore, the assessee rightly debited the interest to the Profit and Loss Account. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of reopening based on the *Hexaware Technologies* decision was pending before the Supreme Court, but the reassessment proceedings were quashed on other grounds, and the addition on merits was deleted. For AY 2016-17, the grounds raised by the Revenue were identical to those for AY 2014-15, and following the same reasoning, they were dismissed. The Tribunal did not decide the ground regarding the Supreme Court's engagement with the *Hexaware Technologies* case.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits with nationalized banks and rental income were not part of the society's primary activity or eligible for deduction under section 80P. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was affirmed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. It was clarified that the assessee could move for recalling if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with most notices but that the CIT(E) should have provided another opportunity to explain the case. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's claim of applying for ex-post-facto sanction for loans. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.

The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal granted the permission to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to revive it if the Final Certificate under the scheme is not issued.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objection by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the appropriate authority as per Section 151 of the IT Act, making the reassessment proceedings illegal and void ab initio.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if penalty proceedings were initiated against Shri Ashok Jain for violating Sections 269SS and 269T. If penalties were levied, the addition would be sustained; otherwise, it would be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the assessee's claim for adjustment of foreign exchange gain/loss, as the assessee consistently followed accounting standards. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the adjustment of excess provision for slow-moving inventory, preventing double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the assessee's claim for adjustment of foreign exchange gain/loss, as the assessee consistently followed accounting standards. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the adjustment of excess provision for slow-moving inventory, preventing double taxation.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that, following various decisions of the ITAT, interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO was directed to allow such deduction.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if penalty proceedings were initiated against Shri Ashok Jain for violating Sections 269SS and 269T. If penalties were levied, the addition would be sustained; otherwise, it would be deleted.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding that it goes to the root of the matter. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the initial assessment was rightly done under Section 144 due to non-compliance, imposing penalty for each instance of non-compliance was not justified. Section 273B allows for waiver of penalty if there's a reasonable cause for failure.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the FAA should not have dismissed the appeal on a technicality. The case was remanded back to the FAA to decide the appeal on its merits, after the assessee files a corrected Form 35.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272B is linked to the person and not the number of defaults. Considering previous precedents and an amendment to the section, the penalty was reduced.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing that the indexed cost of improvement be allowed based on the Valuation Officer's report. Regarding Section 54, the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction if sale consideration was applied for purchase/construction within the stipulated period, even without a completion certificate, and remanded the quantum verification to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity to present evidence and the short notice period violated the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remitting the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had filed details in response to the first notice but failed to comply with the second notice. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that the inadvertent mistake in selecting the wrong sub-clause was not fatal and should not disentitle the appellant from its rightful claim. The CIT(E) should have given an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the defect.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits, thus violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to grant the appellant an opportunity to substantiate its case with requisite details, directing the appellant to make submissions without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. Refusing to condone a non-deliberate delay can lead to a meritorious matter being dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal held that while the appellant had responded to the first notice, they failed to comply with the second notice issued by the CIT(E) regarding certain discrepancies. However, the appellant stated that the response window was not functioning and partial submissions were sent via email. The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to grant an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard. The appellant is also directed to make submissions on the appointed date without seeking adjournment. The grounds raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreement was crucial and lacked essential clauses for legal and financial security. Furthermore, the lease deed was not registered as required by law. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not commenced its core charitable activities, only preparatory steps like land acquisition and construction.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to revive it if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate was not issued.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not grant adequate opportunity to the assessee and the short period given for compliance violated natural justice principles. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee, considering that the circumstances leading to the delay were beyond the assessee's control and in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity to present evidence and the short notice period violated the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remitting the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessees had a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matters to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, as the previous orders were passed ex-parte without going into the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's non-compliance was due to reasons beyond their control and that granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice would be appropriate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the interests of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case, deciding thereafter as per facts and law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessees had a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matters to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, as the previous orders were passed ex-parte without going into the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessees had a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matters to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, as the previous orders were passed ex-parte without going into the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's affidavit. The Tribunal noted an anomaly in the CPC processing where the deduction was initially eligible but later denied. Considering the discrepancy and the facts, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing reasonable cause. While the assessee did not prima facie deserve relief, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant.