ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest earned from surplus deposits with nationalized/scheduled banks. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim for pro rata expenses and allow a statutory deduction of Rs. 50,000/-.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000. Therefore, the appeal was not decided on its merits.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, the presumption of using borrowed funds for non-business purposes is unjustified. It also held that a notarized rent agreement is not essential for claiming rent deduction, and electricity bills in the landlord's name are deductible if the premises are hired for business.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income from surplus deposits with nationalized/scheduled banks. However, it is eligible for a statutory deduction of Rs. 50,000 under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) and pro-rata expenses for earning such income.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision in the case of Suzlon Energy Ltd., restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the provisions of law and the tribunal's earlier order regarding the due date for deposit.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which raised the monetary threshold for filing departmental appeals, was applicable to the pending cases. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit are not maintainable. Therefore, all the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that there was a change in the basis for initiating and imposing the penalty, which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal relied on a co-ordinate bench decision stating that if the original basis of penalty imposition is altered, the penalty is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Explanation to Section 73 was wrongly invoked, allowing the set-off of share trading loss. However, it confirmed the disallowance of expenses related to dividend income under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on surplus funds parked with nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. However, any expenditure incurred to earn such income should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on a technical issue without adjudicating it on merit. The right to file an appeal is statutory and cannot be taken away by delegated legislation. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit, considering the date of the assessment order and the subsequent issuance of the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 145A is not applicable when the assessee's accounting method is revenue neutral. The CIT(A)'s conclusion in favour of the assessee, based on previous Tribunal decisions, was found to be legally sound.

The Tribunal held that Explanation to Section 73 was wrongly invoked, allowing the set-off of share trading loss. However, it confirmed the disallowance of expenses related to dividend income under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that computer software is eligible for 60% depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules, and exchange fluctuation gains are an integral part of export business profits for Section 10AA deduction. The Tribunal followed its previous order on similar issues for the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the loss as a short-term capital loss and allowed it to be set off against capital gains. The revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as being withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the liability for gas transmission and consumption charges crystallized in the current assessment year when the bill was raised by GAIL India Ltd. Therefore, the expenditure could not be disallowed.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO on account of capital gains. The Revenue's appeal challenges this deletion.

The Tribunal confirmed the denial of deduction under Section 80P for interest income earned on investments with banks, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate expenses incurred for earning such income.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which was supported by a jurisdictional High Court ruling. This ruling held that STPI approval, even if ratified subsequently, entitled the assessee to Section 10B deduction.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which was in turn based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The Tribunal held that the approval for 100% export-oriented unit, even if ratified subsequently, entitles the assessee to Section 10B deduction.

The Tribunal confirmed the denial of deduction under Section 80P based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate administrative and financial expenses incurred for earning such interest income.

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without the benefit of the assessee's assistance. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without the assessee's assistance. Therefore, the matter was remitted 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 granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that commission payments made to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, where such income is not taxable in India, do not attract TDS obligations. The assessee was therefore not liable for disallowance for not deducting tax at source.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits 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 de novo adjudication. The assessee should be granted another 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 its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that delayed deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions are not deductible. However, it directed the AO to decide the issue of delay based on the actual date of payment of wages/salaries, as per a co-ordinate bench's observation.

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without the benefit of the assessee's assistance. 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 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, following a co-ordinate bench decision, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its defense.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored all issues back to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues back to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its defense.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to present its defense.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to present their defense.

The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the appeal electronically, considering the assessee's potential unfamiliarity with the new e-filing procedures. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues back to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their defense.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for factual verification. The AO was directed to re-determine the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) considering the interpretation of 'due date' based on salary disbursement and available grace periods, as per the Kanoi Paper & Industries Ltd. case.