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.
The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities’ action of treating the ₹2.55 lakh returned income as under-reported, as the return was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice issued before the statutory due date. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made on cash deposits.1
Pune ITAT dismissed a firm’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s order to tax Rs 19.44 lakh in unexplained cash and stock found in a survey under the stringent Section 115BBE.
ITAT Pune ruled that the CPC erred in restricting TDS credit for a cooperative society based on a turnover mismatch in Form 26AS. The difference was due to the same sale being subjected to double TDS under both Section 194-O and Section 194-Q, wrongly inflating the receipts and TDS entries.
The Pune ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, confirming that the alleged unexplained investment transaction occurred in the earlier financial year. The ruling emphasizes the Assessing Officer’s duty to verify the correct assessment year before invoking Section 69, as liability must attach to the right period.
