The Tribunal held that TP additions for guarantee fee and interest were unsustainable because the TPO applied no prescribed method. Key takeaway: ALP must be determined using recognized methodologies, not ad-hoc markups.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) must decide all grounds, including legality of reopening under Section 147/148. Order remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6).
ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act merely because of inadvertent error of claiming exemption u/s. 10(46) instead of 10(23C)(iv) is not justifiable. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) granted.
ITAT Pune held that issue of taxability of ex-gratia payment to be decided based on identical judgement as decided by coordinate bench of Tribunal in Mahadev Vasant Dhangekar. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
ITAT Pune ruled that the late filing of the Form 10B audit report is not fatal to the charitable trust exemption if filed before assessment completion. The court reversed the disallowance of application of income solely based on procedural delay.
ITAT Pune reaffirmed that 15% accumulation permitted under Section 11(1)(a) must be computed on gross receipts. Revenue’s argument restricting it to surplus was rejected, relying on consistent rulings of Supreme Court and High Courts.
Pune ITAT significantly reduced Section 14A disallowance, ruling that administrative expenses relating to a proprietary concern with no investments must be excluded from computation. ITAT applied a reasonable estimate of Rs.10 lakh after finding expenses like depreciation and property tax had no nexus with earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly accepted excess stock and cash disclosed during survey as business income after enquiry. Section 115BBE was not applicable, and PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was invalid.
Despite a significant delay, the ITAT Pune condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach and the assessee’s later knowledge of the ₹25 Lakh leave encashment exemption notification. The case was sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to apply the enhanced limit and related case law, highlighting the precedence of justice in appeal delays.
