ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that since the related quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty itself must also be deleted. The foundation of the impugned penalty no longer held good in law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case not exceeding the revised limit. Additionally, the quantum appeal was also decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall of dismissal for cases falling under exceptions or with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the tax liability arises under the special provisions of Section 115JB, as no concealment can be envisaged in such a scenario. The amendment to Explanation (4) of Section 271(1)(c) was also noted as prospective.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall of dismissal for cases falling under exceptions or with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were set aside, the basis for imposing the penalty no longer survived. Therefore, the action of the CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty was set aside.

The tribunal deleted the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure, relying on judicial precedents, as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. However, the disallowance of administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the remittances were indeed unsecured loans and the cash deposits were explained through reconciliation with the cash book. The AO's remand reports supported these findings.

The Tribunal held that conversion of shares from stock-in-trade to investment does not give rise to a taxable event, following High Court precedents. Regarding disallowance under Rule 8D, it was held that if interest-free own funds exceed investments yielding tax-free income, no disallowance is warranted.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue's SLP against a similar High Court decision.

The tribunal deleted the disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure, relying on judicial precedents, as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. However, the disallowance of administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was neither a proprietor nor a beneficiary of the concerns that imported the goods. Therefore, the tax liability could not be levied upon the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from fixed deposits, even if from spare funds, should not be excluded from book profit for determining the allowable deduction of remuneration to partners. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision that such income, when offered as business income, forms part of the book profit.

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to substantiate the escapement of income after four years and that there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. The AO's rectification order under section 154 allowing the claim was deemed correct.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently treated the residential units as investments in its books and wealth tax returns, and the Assessing Officer failed to disprove this. Therefore, the profit from the sale of these units was assessable as capital gains.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT instruction no. 3 of 2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the liability for the expenses was incurred in the assessment year when the scheme commenced, even though the payment and distribution occurred in the next year. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature and was related to capital assets, thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the associations was not revenue in nature but related to capital assets, and thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemptions based on the proviso to Section 2(15) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature but related to capital assets, and therefore, it was not taxable income. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee had not earned any exempt income, making Section 14A inapplicable. The Tribunal also relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions regarding CENVAT credit and valuation of closing stock.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the disallowances. It ruled that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable without exempt income, insurance expenses were for Keyman policies, the related concern was not covered by Section 40A(2)(b), and sufficient own funds were available for capital expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim for 15% income accumulation. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year, the Tribunal affirmed that the 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) is unfettered.

The Tribunal, following its coordinate bench's orders for earlier assessment years, held that the claim for depreciation on office equipment used for administrative work should be verified. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of the factual plea.

The Tribunal held that Section 11 benefits would apply upon restoration of registration. It also ruled that BCCI donations were valid corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d) based on a resolution and confirmations, and remitted the capital expenditure claim for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for increasing authorized share capital are capital in nature and not eligible for deduction as preliminary expenses under Section 35D. The disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the associations was not revenue in nature and was relatable to capital assets. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all particulars with a bonafide belief and that a rejected claim does not automatically imply concealment. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal, in agreement with both the assessee and the Revenue, decided to restore both issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the facts. The assessee will have the opportunity to present its claims and supporting evidence, and the AO will decide afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 12AA registration was restored, Section 11 benefits would apply. It also ruled that the BCCI donations qualified as corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d) based on a resolution and confirmations, directing deletion of the addition. The claim for capital expenditure deduction was remitted to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature and was related to capital assets, thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Section 11 benefits would apply upon restoration of registration. It also ruled that BCCI donations were valid corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d) based on a resolution and confirmations, and remitted the capital expenditure claim for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for increasing authorized share capital are capital in nature and not eligible for deduction as preliminary expenses under Section 35D. The disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 11 benefits would apply upon restoration of registration. It also ruled that BCCI donations were valid corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d) based on a resolution and confirmations, and remitted the capital expenditure claim for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 11 benefits would apply upon restoration of registration. It also ruled that BCCI donations were valid corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d) based on a resolution and confirmations, and remitted the capital expenditure claim for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature and was related to capital assets, thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature and was related to capital assets, thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature and was related to capital assets, thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature and was related to capital assets, thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the infrastructure subsidy received by the cricket associations was not revenue in nature and was related to capital assets, thus not taxable. Consequently, the denial of exemption on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Section 11 benefits would apply upon restoration of registration. It also ruled that BCCI donations were valid corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d) based on a resolution and confirmations, and remitted the capital expenditure claim for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the depreciation claim on moulding boxes was allowable as revenue expenditure due to their short life. The transportation charges for internal material movement were also allowed as the assessee had bifurcated them from material handling charges.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the nature of booking amounts as liabilities, supported by accounting details, was valid. The regrouping and reclassification of accounts did not result in any cessation of liability or generation of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the nature of booking amounts as liabilities, supported by accounting details, was valid. The regrouping and reclassification of accounts did not result in any cessation of liability or generation of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the nature of booking amounts as liabilities, supported by accounting details, was valid. The regrouping and reclassification of accounts did not result in any cessation of liability or generation of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the nature of booking amounts as liabilities, supported by accounting details, was valid. The regrouping and reclassification of accounts did not result in any cessation of liability or generation of income.