ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that the commission paid to Vikrant P. Prajapati needed re-examination in light of agreements with third parties. It restricted the disallowance for Dipikaben S. Prajapati to 50% and disallowed 100% of the commission paid to Payalben B. Patel.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds deposited with a nationalized bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, it found merit in the assessee's alternative plea for deducting expenses attributable to earning such interest and remitted this aspect to the AO.

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 their case.

The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in e-filing, considering it a minor procedural issue. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal electronically and decide it on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the technical breach, considering the assessee's potential unfamiliarity with e-filing. It directed the CIT(A) to admit the e-appeal for disposal on merits.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to file electronically was a technical breach, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the new e-filing system. Therefore, the delay in e-filing was condoned, and the appeal was revived for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the e-appeal, considering the assessee's potential lack of familiarity with the new e-filing system. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal for disposal on merits.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found several discrepancies in the assessee's claim regarding the use of infrastructure and the genuineness of the transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.