ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — April 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was rendered infructuous as subsequent appellate decisions had already provided relief on the issues raised. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the issue was covered in favour of the assessee in an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowances for penalties, annual maintenance charges, mark-to-market loss, and software charges. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted as there was no total failure to deduct TDS, only a shortfall.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the Section 69 issue, finding that the assessee had produced sufficient evidence, including statements from depositors and landholding records, to explain the source of funds. However, the appeal was dismissed on the Section 40A(3) issue as the assessee did not press the ground and failed to provide explanations.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on an estimated basis for stock difference and the cash credit, given the small individual amounts and lack of further investigation by the AO, did not constitute concealment of income. The disclosed income was also reflected in the return.

The Tribunal held that the denial of cost of improvement based on a third-party statement without providing it to the assessee and allowing cross-examination violates natural justice. The Tribunal restored this part of the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the denial of cost of improvement based on a third-party statement without providing it to the assessee and allowing cross-examination violates natural justice. The Tribunal restored this part of the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not press the challenge for one transaction, the penalty under Section 271E does not automatically follow every contravention of Section 269T. Since the genuineness of the impugned transactions was not doubted by the lower authorities, the penalty was directed to be deleted for the remaining cases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition, finding it consistent with the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal also partly allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to the amount of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. While acknowledging that the Hon'ble High Court had reversed the Tribunal's earlier decision and confirmed the disallowances (as reported in 389 ITR 578), the Tribunal found that the assessee's claim for deduction was supported by various judicial decisions at the time it was made. Therefore, it was considered a bona fide claim backed by judicial pronouncements, and not a deliberate false claim or an act of concealing particulars of income. The Tribunal respectfully followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), stating that the assessee had not deliberately filed inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income. Although the CIT(A) deleted the penalty for a different reason (removal of the basis of addition), the Tribunal, considering the facts in totality, concluded that penalty was not leviable. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the Assessee was allowed. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the assessee's books of account. The assessee failed to substantiate the reason for the fall in GP, particularly the claim of excess shrinkage, with adequate supporting material.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the stock valuation method was accepted by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case. Furthermore, the CIT initiated revision on grounds different from the show-cause notice and without proper hearing, and the revision was exercised on a ground not permissible prior to an amendment.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned. The reopening of assessment was upheld as the original assessment did not examine the issue of Section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's evidence, including the vendor's affidavit and cash book, rebutted the presumption of truth in the registered sale deed regarding the timing of payment. The addition for unexplained investment was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as there was no change in beneficial ownership of shares, despite a change in legal ownership. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that similar expenses were allowed in subsequent assessment years and the assessee had provided supporting documents. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 50% in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee only established the identity of the shareholders but failed to prove their capacity and the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.

The Tribunal held that reimbursements of expenses do not require tax deduction at source. The assessee's obligation to withhold tax arises only when payment is for carrying out work, not for reimbursement of expenses already incurred.

The Tribunal held that reimbursements of expenses do not require tax deduction at source. The assessee's obligation to withhold tax arises only when payment is for carrying out work, not for reimbursement of expenses already incurred.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that ad-hoc disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b) are not permissible without establishing the fair market value of services. The Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus of proving the payments were excessive or unreasonable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by re-characterizing the addition under Section 41(1) without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s factual finding incorrect as the bank was under liquidation and the liability still existed.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, especially after the AO was aware of the death, is not sustainable and quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the issue was squarely covered by the Tribunal's previous decision in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10, with no disparity in facts.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision where it was held that only the profit element, at 15% of the alleged bogus purchases, should be added to the income, rather than the entire amount. The addition was restricted to 15% of Rs. 77,68,002/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that unavailed MODVAT credit cannot be construed as income and there is no liability to pay tax on it. Following its own prior decisions and Supreme Court observations, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis for the penalty was deleted, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made to the assessee's income, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty was non-est and thus cancelled. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made to the assessee's income, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty was non-est and thus cancelled. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee did not have the benefit of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to ESIC disallowance, citing a Gujarat High Court decision. The grounds concerning interest under section 234C and short credit for taxes paid were dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not deductible in computing income. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which is binding.

The Tribunal found the delay in e-filing to be bonafide and agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found the delay in e-filing to be bonafide and agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, noting the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present their case.

The Tribunal found the delay in e-filing to be bonafide and agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and the assessee was not heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and the assessee was not heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee-appellant is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not deductible in computing income. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation.

The Tribunal held that DTAA provisions, being more beneficial to the assessee, override domestic law, including Section 206AA. Therefore, the assessee was justified in applying DTAA rates for TDS, and Section 206AA cannot be invoked to insist on a higher rate.

The Tribunal held that Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, which gives overriding effect to DTAAs when they are more beneficial to the assessee, also overrides procedural provisions like Section 206AA. Therefore, the assessee was justified in applying the beneficial DTAA rates.

The tribunal found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without the assessee's assistance. The Tribunal agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not deductible. However, it remitted the matter for verification of payments made within the permissible time limit.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without the assessee's assistance. The Departmental Representative agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.