ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in determining the ALP at NIL for intra-group services without applying any of the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act. Such an arbitrary determination frustrates the transfer pricing addition.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who had deleted the addition. The Tribunal followed the decision of a coordinate bench and held that the provision for depreciation on securities held as stock-in-trade, as per RBI guidelines, is allowable.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(Exemption) for bonafide reasons beyond their control. The Tribunal restored the files to the CIT(Exemption) to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to submit necessary documents and information.

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.

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.

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, 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.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had complied with initial notices, a discrepancy arose from a subsequent notice for which only seven days were given. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appellant should be granted an opportunity to substantiate its case, considering the circumstances and the short time given for compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(Exemption) for bonafide reasons beyond their control. The Tribunal restored the files to the CIT(Exemption) to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to submit necessary documents and information.

The Tribunal held that merely because notices u/s.133(6) were not served, it should not be the basis for disallowing the loans, especially when the loans were taken and repaid through banking channels and interest was allowed. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Bairagra Builders (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 because the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not cumulatively satisfied. The AO's actions were found to be in line with Tribunal and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions in similar cases for other assessment years, set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide necessary evidence and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT had wrongly referred to a non-existent show cause notice date, which appeared to be a typographical error. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)/NFAC, and to file submissions. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for one final opportunity, directing the assessee to substantiate the case and imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for negligent attitude.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)/NFAC, and to file submissions. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for one final opportunity, directing the assessee to substantiate the case and imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for negligent attitude.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)/NFAC, and to file submissions. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for one final opportunity, directing the assessee to substantiate the case and imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for negligent attitude.

The Tribunal found the appeal was time-barred but condoned the delay of 32 days due to reasonable cause. The reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was upheld. However, the addition related to the cessation of liability (Rs.26,63,369/-) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as it was not dealt with in detail.