ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — October 2017

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the share application money, and the income was offered voluntarily to buy peace. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee's proprietary concern and the company were regular business transactions and current accommodation entries, not loans or advances. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee's proprietary concern and the company were regular business transactions and current accommodation entries, not loans or advances. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to a state of confusion. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to a state of confusion. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to a state of confusion. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to decide the matter and that the assessee's claims for deduction on godown rent, dividend and interest from other cooperative societies, and agricultural commission income were justified. The Tribunal found that these incomes were derived from activities falling within the ambit of Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its surplus funds deposited in a bank, which are not immediately required for lending to members, is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities and is deductible under Section 80P(1).

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without a detailed examination of the merits.

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee's representation and considering the lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal, decided to dismiss the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.

The tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271FA cannot be imposed if the failure was due to a reasonable cause. In this case, the delay in filing the AIR return was considered a reasonable cause.