ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that since the assessee demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available, it could be assumed that the advances were made from these funds, not from interest-bearing ones. Therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid, even in the presence of a search action, as Section 153C was not invoked. The Tribunal also found the assessee's arguments on merits unconvincing and upheld the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press the penalty on the amount paid to Insat Auto Electricals. Regarding Mayur Auto Garage, while the addition to income was justified based on probabilities, the penalty was deleted because the assessee's culpability for concealment was not sufficiently established. However, the penalty on the addition related to Insat Auto Electricals was confirmed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh based on additional evidence. The assessee was given an opportunity to file further documents and be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A, as the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 60% on computer software, following previous rulings.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for Section 14A expenses by following a Supreme Court judgment on surplus funds. It dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding commission expenses, market research expenses, MODVAT credit, and bad debts, finding them allowable as business expenses or trading losses.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit in the CBDT circular and did not fall under any of the exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of an inadvertent mistake was a general statement without substantiating circumstances or evidence. The explanation provided was not considered bona fide, and the assessee failed to prove that all material facts were disclosed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The assessee's quantum appeal was partly allowed regarding interest disallowance, and its penalty appeal was allowed as no second penalty should be imposed on the same addition.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The assessee's quantum appeal was partly allowed regarding interest disallowance, and its penalty appeal was allowed as no second penalty should be imposed on the same addition.

The Tribunal confirmed the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the High Court's ruling. However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate administrative and financial expenses incurred for earning such interest income.

The Tribunal confirmed the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the High Court's ruling. However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate administrative and financial expenses incurred for earning such interest income.

The Tribunal confirmed the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the High Court's ruling. However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate administrative and financial expenses incurred for earning such interest income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The assessee's quantum appeal was partly allowed regarding interest disallowance, and its penalty appeal was allowed as no second penalty should be imposed on the same addition.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal confirmed the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as per the High Court's ruling. However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate expenses incurred for earning such income and examine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(c).

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The assessee's quantum appeal was partly allowed regarding interest disallowance, and its penalty appeal was allowed as no second penalty should be imposed on the same addition.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The assessee's quantum appeal was partly allowed regarding interest disallowance, and its penalty appeal was allowed as no second penalty should be imposed on the same addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. The explanation for the delay was not considered justifiable, and the appeal was deemed to be handled in a casual manner.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided another opportunity to the assessee, especially since the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to a change of address. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular restricting appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs, which was applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular restricts appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence as it was contemporary and the AO had an opportunity to comment. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs. 2 crores from the share capital addition, as the amount was received in the subsequent financial year and an addition was already made for that year.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, based on the CBDT circular which sets monetary limits for tax effect in appeals. The Revenue can seek restoration if they can show the circular is inapplicable.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that interest-free advances were presumed to be from own funds when interest-free funds were available. It also held that surcharge and education cess are includible in MAT credit.

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

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the appeal electronically and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for disposal on merits. The assessee was granted 30 days to file the e-appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additional claim for deduction should be entertained even without a revised return, as appellate authorities can adjudicate such claims. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-computation of the correct deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was served with the notice of hearing but failed to appear, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular restricts the filing of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds in the form of reserves, surplus, and net revenue from operations to cover the investment in WIP. Therefore, no notional interest should be capitalized.

The Tribunal held that late deposit of employee PF/ESIC contributions is not deductible as per Section 36(1)(va) and upheld the disallowance. However, it held that the legal expense was compensatory in nature and allowable under Section 37(1), deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that only Hydra cranes, which were registered as motor vehicles and mounted on trucks, were eligible for higher depreciation. Other types of cranes were not considered integral parts of motor vehicles or heavy motor vehicles.

The Tribunal held that compliance with Section 194C(6) (providing PAN of transporters) is sufficient to avoid disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), even if Section 194C(7) (furnishing particulars to prescribed authority) is not strictly followed. Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) are independent.

The Tribunal, following precedent, dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The assessee retains the liberty to seek recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal held that only Hydra cranes, which were registered as motor vehicles and mounted on trucks, were eligible for higher depreciation. Other types of cranes were not considered integral parts of motor vehicles or heavy motor vehicles.

The Tribunal held that the slump sale transaction occurred on March 30, 2012, making the capital gain taxable in AY 2012-13. It also ruled that the full sale consideration disclosed by the assessee should be accepted, not the fair market value adopted by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the payments were a matter of business expediency and the department cannot dictate how a businessman should manage expenses. Since payments were made through banking channels with TDS deducted, and the commission was linked to sales fetched, the assessee should get relief.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full deduction under Section 54 as the entire investment was made by him. Merely including the father's name as a joint owner does not disentitle the assessee to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the slump sale transaction occurred on March 30, 2012, making the capital gain taxable in AY 2012-13. It also ruled that the full sale consideration disclosed by the assessee should be accepted, not the fair market value adopted by the AO.

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