ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2017

The Tribunal held that ownership of the plot is not a prerequisite for Section 80IB(10) deduction, citing previous ITAT and High Court decisions. The assessee undertook entrepreneurial risk, managed advertising, collected payments, and bore other liabilities, thus qualifying as a developer.

The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals filed by the Revenue. This was because the net tax effect in each appeal was less than the amount prescribed by CBDT circular no. 21/2015, and no exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of consultancy charges and helicopter rental was not justified, following a co-ordinate bench decision and jurisdictional High Court rulings. The Tribunal also noted that the recipient had offered the income to tax at the same rate as the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the CIT(A) which formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a prior quantum appeal. Since the addition was deleted, there was no foundation for levying penalty.

The Tribunal held that an addition made with the aid of the deeming fiction in Section 50C is not conclusive proof of concealment of income, as the assessee could have opted for a reference to the DVO. The penalty was also not adequately justified for the other addition.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), which allows deduction if the recipient includes the income, is retrospective. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to verify this fact was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that the 24% interest rate on unsecured loans was not in consonance with the market rate. Considering the nature of unsecured loans, the Tribunal found the interest payment not to be excessive.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to produce additional evidence, finding that the time provided by the AO for submitting details was insufficient. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider one of the grounds of appeal concerning the disallowance of interest expenses. Therefore, this issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. Citing various High Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment in Finance Act, 2014 (effective from AY 2015-16), the word 'a' in Section 54 could include plural residential houses. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for both properties purchased.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying TDS demand was deleted, there was no legal basis for the penalties. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying TDS demand was deleted, there was no legal basis for the penalties. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, with liberty to the CIT(A) to proceed if the assessee failed to avail it.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of keeping the investment amount in a separate account is not applicable if the investment is made within the prescribed time limit. It also clarified that the time limit for investment includes the extended time under Section 139(4).

The Tribunal held that interest earned from nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, it allowed for the reduction of any direct expenditure incurred in earning this income before declining the deduction.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying TDS demand was deleted, there was no legal basis for the penalties. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting the addition to the 'profit element' embedded in the alleged unaccounted sales, based on the assessee's net profit rate. The Department's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting the addition to the 'profit element' embedded in the alleged unaccounted sales, based on the assessee's net profit rate. The Department's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details for the payments made. However, considering the nature of the business and agreement from the AR, the Gross Profit was estimated at 5.5%. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal deleted the penalty related to professional fees as a deduction under Section 80QQB was allowed. The penalty on house property income was deleted as the assessee voluntarily disclosed it, and the penalty on interest income was deleted due to the small amount and inadvertent error.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Citing various High Court and ITAT decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details for the payments made. However, considering the nature of the business and agreement from the AR, the Gross Profit was estimated at 5.5%. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a previous decision in a co-owner's case. It was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be automatically imposed merely because an addition was made, especially when the assessee disclosed all relevant documents and the explanation was not found to be non-bonafide.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It confirmed the addition of house property income and the disallowance of motor car expenditure. However, it directed the AO to reconsider the disallowance under Section 14A, considering the availability of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that even in the absence of a specific request from the assessee, the AO is obligated to offer the option to refer the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2). Following the precedent of the Calcutta High Court, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after referring it to the DVO.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) had rightly considered the evidence and submissions presented during the remand proceedings, finding the additions to be unsubstantiated.