ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Such income is to be treated as income from other sources and assessed under Section 56.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a Gujarat High Court judgment disallowing deductions for late deposit of employee contributions. However, considering a pending Supreme Court appeal and a Gujarat High Court order allowing revival of appeals if the Supreme Court reverses its decision, the matter was set aside to the AO.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from surplus funds invested in banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This income is to be treated as income from other sources.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC, which disallowed deductions for late deposit of employee contributions. However, considering the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court's approach in a similar case, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Gujarat High Court's decision in GSRTC, which disallowed deductions for late deposit of employee contributions. However, considering a pending Supreme Court appeal and the Gujarat High Court's approach in a similar case, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC, which disallowed deductions for late deposit of employee contributions. However, considering the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court's approach in a similar case, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC, which disallowed deductions for late EPF deposits. However, considering the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court and a similar approach taken by the Gujarat High Court in another case, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that an appeal on this issue was pending before the Supreme Court. Following a similar approach adopted by the Gujarat High Court in another case, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide after considering the Supreme Court's judgment.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Gujarat High Court's decision in GSRTC, which disallowed deductions for late deposit of employee contributions. However, considering a pending Supreme Court appeal and a Gujarat High Court order allowing revival of appeals if the Supreme Court reverses its decision, the matter was set aside.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating on merits is not sustainable. The CIT(A) failed to follow the procedure laid down in Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the procedure by not adjudicating the issues on merits and dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution without proper opportunity. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the procedure by not adjudicating the issues on merits and dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution without proper opportunity. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the Revenue's application for withdrawal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018.

The Tribunal held that since the commission income was not chargeable to tax in India, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS. The actions of the foreign agents did not constitute business operations in India.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on a CBDT circular regarding the tax effect. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee from bank deposits is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and is to be taxed under the normal provisions of the Act as income from other sources.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC, which disallowed deductions for late deposit of employee contributions. However, considering the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court and a similar order from the Gujarat High Court in another case, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal followed its own previous order in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. It noted that the Revenue had not appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction in earlier years, implying acceptance. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12,58,000 and Rs. 1,97,000 as unexplained cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanations and evidence insufficient. However, it restricted the addition for Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 1,05,000, as Rs. 1,45,000 was found to be explained by earlier cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal held that the date of transfer for the purpose of Section 54 should be considered as the date of execution of the sale deed and possession, not the registration date. Therefore, the investment made by the assessee was within the stipulated time frame.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 998 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's severe financial distress and inability to pursue legal matters. The case was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest expenses were allowable as they were for business purposes and the company had sufficient capital. It also ruled that disallowances based on a CBDT circular issued after the relevant financial year were not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in charging interest on loans and advances made to the sister concern. However, the rate of interest was reduced from 12% to 9% as the higher rate was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was set up during the assessment year, evidenced by various preparatory activities and approvals. Consequently, the expenses incurred and depreciation claimed were allowable.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural produce and sale of land were genuine, and the cash withdrawals from the bank were also available. However, the loan of Rs. 18,000/- from Mr. Harshadkumar Babulal Patel was not sufficiently substantiated.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, accepting that the shares were purchased and sold within the financial year 2004-05. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was on account of a difference of opinion regarding a legal claim, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court judgments and previous CIT(A) decisions, the Tribunal found no merit in levying the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT circular and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that for deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employee contribution must be credited to the employee's account in the relevant fund on or before the due date. The Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) is unsustainable without a finding about the fair market value of the services. Following its own co-ordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was served with the notice of hearing but did not appear, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not justified when the payment is genuine, for business purposes, and made in cash due to lack of banking facilities at the assessee's remote location. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case due to non-appearance. Citing various High Court and ITAT decisions, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was required to be deducted on reimbursement of expenses, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed based on this circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred for business expediency to promote the assessee's business of medicine. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the disallowance was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not justified when the payment is genuine, for business purposes, and made in cash due to lack of banking facilities at the assessee's remote location. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular and did not fall under any of the exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT held that since the PCIT's order under Section 263, which was the basis for the reassessment, was quashed by a coordinate bench, the appeal before the CIT(A) became infructuous. Therefore, the revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision is dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not disposing of the assessee's objections to the reassessment notice prior to finalizing the reassessment order. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation regarding the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the loan creditors. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal decided to delete the addition made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in disallowing 100% of the expenses without proper verification of primary evidence. The penalty was also deemed unjustified as the assessee had provided supporting documents despite the hard disk failure.

The Tribunal followed its own previous order for the assessee and held that being declared a sick unit by BIFR, coupled with staff retrenchment and auditor disputes, constituted a reasonable cause for not obtaining the audit report in time. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal followed its own previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, which held that the assessee's activities are charitable and eligible for exemption. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income. The assessee failed to substantiate that investments were made solely from interest-free funds or that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the undisclosed income based on seized documents and had specified the manner of earning it. The AO had not made further inquiries or additions, indicating acceptance of the disclosure and substantiation.