ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, deleted the penalties. It was held that the assessee had furnished particulars of income and it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, which held that no penalty was leviable when the assessee had furnished particulars of income and it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The ITAT condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on its merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, which held that no penalty was leviable when the assessee had furnished particulars of income and it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that owning more than one residential house, even if jointly owned, disqualifies the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 54F. The assessee's contention that one property was owned by an HUF was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of tax-exempt income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the disallowance was restricted to the dividend earnings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the disallowance of administrative expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 54EC(1), as it stood before the amendment effective from 1st April 2015, allowed investment in bonds within six months of transfer, and the Rs. 50 lakh limit applied per financial year. Therefore, the assessee's claim was valid.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income in the year of acquisition. This is based on the principle that normal depreciation is a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee.

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

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Based on precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the grounds on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, as summary ex-parte disposal does not advance justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be reasonable, attributing it to a technical fault. The penalty imposed for the delay was deemed unjustified and was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's own funds were far in excess of the interest-free advances, no disallowance could be made under Section 36(1)(iii). The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the additions/disallowances that led to the penalty imposition had already been reversed by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the basis for the penalty no longer existed.

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 held that the addition on account of motor accident claims was wrongly deleted by the CIT(A) and should be restored. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the income from license fees of the canteen as business income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The merits of the addition were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 50C(1) is applicable as part of the consideration was received by cheque before the agreement date, and this proviso has retrospective effect. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's share in the property was not examined.

The Tribunal set aside the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and present evidence, while the Assessing Officer was to consider all evidence on record and any new evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide evidence, while the Assessing Officer was to consider all evidence on record and any new evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Section 80IB(10) deduction. It noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously remitted the issue for AY 2005-06 back to the AO for fresh adjudication, and the AO had already finalized proceedings before issuing notices for the current assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for the assessment year 2011-12 was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. Following this precedent, the present issue was also set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to ESI and PF, if not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date, is not eligible for deduction, even if deposited before the due date prescribed under Section 43B. The appeal was dismissed following the Gujarat High Court judgment.

The Tribunal found that the claim of the assessee was not properly verified and that the funds might have been borrowed for business purposes. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the utilization of funds for business.

The Tribunal held that since the loss claimed by the assessee was later confirmed by the Tribunal itself as an allowable business loss, the foundation for the penalty levy was removed. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that internal CUP and TNMM should have been accepted as appropriate methods, considering the higher rates earned from AEs and the similarity of services provided. Foreign exchange gains were also considered operating items.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on the speculation loss issue, following the Supreme Court's decision in Shah Sadiq and Sons, which upheld accrued rights. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the addition to book profit under Section 115JB, following a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim was disallowed does not automatically make the assessee liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee had furnished details, and the penalty was levied for inaccurate particulars while the CIT(A) confirmed it for concealment.

The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim on Exchange Card/Trade Rights by following a co-ordinate bench decision. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification, following a similar direction from a co-ordinate bench.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee, through their AR, agreed to the disallowance of 10% of labour expenses, there was no merit in the subsequent grievance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following a precedent, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) directed adjustments to both opening and closing stock. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO to verify the accounting method and its tax neutrality before recalculating and deciding the case.

The Tribunal held that since the basis of the assessment order (the CIT's Section 263 order) was removed by a previous ITAT decision, the assessment order itself became non-est. Therefore, no error was found in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for late payment of EPF and ESI contributions is a settled matter. It followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of GSRTC.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for additional depreciation, following its own previous order in the assessee's case. It held that parts of machinery should be allowable for additional depreciation if the main machinery is eligible.

The Tribunal deleted the Section 14A disallowance by following previous years' orders. It also deleted the closing stock addition, citing consistency with prior rulings. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding director's remuneration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances of salary and depreciation did not constitute a case of undisclosed income warranting penalty under Section 158BFA(2). The penalty was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal followed a previous order of a co-ordinate bench which held that Section 80IA(5) applies only to assessment years immediately succeeding the initial assessment year. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and does not fall under any exception. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the activity constituted business income rather than capital gains. It was noted that other co-owners involved in similar transactions were assessed on business income, and Section 50C was not applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue regarding brand value and marketing had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous years. Similarly, for interest expenses and forex loss, the Tribunal found consistency with prior rulings where the assessee had sufficient reserves.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Rajkot Dist. Co-op Bank Ltd. The assessee's grievances were rejected based on this precedent.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting disallowances for commission expenses related to two payees and depreciation on offices. However, disallowances for commission expenses related to four other payees and personal expenditure were upheld.

The Tribunal held that whether the assessee follows an 'exclusive method' or an 'inclusive method' of accounting for CENVAT credit, the impact on profitability is neutral. Therefore, no addition is warranted under Section 145A.