ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that co-operative credit societies providing credit facilities to their members are not hit by Section 80P(4) as they are not 'co-operative banks' as defined under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, they are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that co-operative credit societies, by providing credit facilities to their members, are not considered 'co-operative banks' as defined under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, Section 80P(4) does not apply to them, and they are eligible for deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that co-operative credit societies providing credit facilities to their members are not hit by Section 80P(4) as they are not 'co-operative banks' as defined under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, they are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the basis for imposing the penalty was extinguished as the AO, in the fresh assessment order pursuant to the Tribunal's direction, did not make the additions on which the penalty was imposed. Therefore, the penalty does not survive.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and cannot be levied solely based on additions made during assessment without independent verification. The AO failed to conduct necessary verification before levying the penalty.

The Tribunal found the addition disproportionate to the assessee's negligence and, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to submit explanations before the AO. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of interest on IT refund to the AO for verification. The disallowance of PF & ESI was dismissed as conceded by the assessee. The disallowance of business loss was allowed, holding that irrecoverable advances given in the course of business are deductible.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and cannot be levied solely based on additions made during assessment without independent verification. The AO failed to conduct necessary verification before levying the penalty.

The Tribunal held that co-operative credit societies providing credit facilities to their members are not hit by Section 80P(4) as they are not 'co-operative banks' as defined under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, they are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that co-operative credit societies providing credit facilities to their members are not hit by Section 80P(4) as they are not 'co-operative banks' as defined under the Banking Regulation Act. Therefore, they are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's lapse in filing the appeal was bonafide, considering the difficult personal and family health circumstances. The Tribunal found it to be a fit case for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's bonafide mistake and difficult personal circumstances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the lending of money was a substantial part of the business of the two companies from which the assessee received loans. Additionally, the assessee paid interest on these loans, compensating the companies. Therefore, the loans were not to be treated as deemed dividends.

The Tribunal restored the issue of bogus purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication after issuing summons to the parties. For unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 9,93,500/- as the assessee failed to provide evidence for a car sale. The disallowance of interest was dismissed, and vehicle expenses disallowance was reduced.

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

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). It was held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessed income remained nil.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of formulating points for determination and recording reasons for the decision, even in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that filing the report in Form 56F during the assessment proceedings, even if not with the original return, constitutes substantial compliance. Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the requirement to be directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions themselves did not survive, the basis for imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) also ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty was set aside and cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 68. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 2B of the Income Tax Rules only provide exemption for travel concessions or assistance for journeys undertaken within India. Travel to foreign destinations is not covered under this exemption.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the failure of the prescribed authority to send intimation in Form No. 3CL would not deprive the assessee of the deduction. The issue was settled by previous orders of the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court.

The tribunal held that for assessment years prior to April 1, 2015, a charitable institution registered under section 12A is entitled to claim both the capital expenditure as application of income and depreciation on the assets purchased. The amendment restricting this benefit is not applicable to the year under appeal.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). It relied on High Court and its own bench decisions, noting that the AO's satisfaction for penalty initiation was vague and altered during the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not refer the matter to the VO for determining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 if the assessee's declared value, based on a registered valuer's report, was not less than the fair market value. The AO's reference was deemed not permissible under Section 55A prior to its amendment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) inadvertently failed to consider the condonation petition. The assessee should not suffer due to the accountant's negligence, and in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Foundation. The assessee trust was therefore entitled to depreciation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's activities of environmental preservation through an effluent treatment plant qualified as charitable. It followed its own prior ruling and High Court decisions, concluding that charging fees for such services did not disqualify the trust from Sections 11 and 12 benefits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure by not formulating points of dispute and recording reasons, even in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions themselves did not survive, the basis for imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) also ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty was set aside and cancelled.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's activities of environmental preservation through an effluent treatment plant qualified as charitable. It followed its own prior ruling and High Court decisions, concluding that charging fees for such services did not disqualify the trust from Sections 11 and 12 benefits.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not refer the matter to the VO for determining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 if the assessee's declared value, based on a registered valuer's report, was not less than the fair market value. The AO's reference was deemed not permissible under Section 55A prior to its amendment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Foundation. The assessee trust was therefore entitled to depreciation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not admitting additional evidence and not giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The quantum appeal and penalty were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision, finding that the unsecured loans were capital in nature and had not been waived or ceased to exist. The outstanding liability was linked to the liquidation proceedings of a bank where the assessee had made fixed deposits.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy received under the TUFS scheme, which was in the nature of reimbursement and related to capital expenditure, was a capital receipt. Therefore, it could not be taxed as income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be made if the assessee has not claimed any deduction for such interest in its return of income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The ITAT allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked unless specific assets like money, bullion, or jewellery are found during the search and are demonstrably linked to the relevant assessment years. Mere disclosure of income in response to a 153A notice without such recovery is insufficient for penalty.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked unless specific assets like money, bullion, or jewellery are found during the search and are demonstrably linked to the relevant assessment years. Mere disclosure of income in response to a 153A notice without such recovery is insufficient for penalty.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked unless specific assets like money, bullion, or jewellery are found during the search and are demonstrably linked to the relevant assessment years. Mere disclosure of income in response to a 153A notice without such recovery is insufficient for penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived in their statement recorded under Section 132(4). Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAA was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that AY 2002-03 was the initial assessment year as per Section 80IB(14)(c)(iv). Consequently, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction in AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding household expenditure and investment in property. For vehicle expenses, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance from 20% to 10%.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) used an address provided for service, the assessee's correct address was also available in IT records. To ensure fair play and provide an opportunity for the assessee to present their case, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order was not sustainable because it failed to record a specific finding as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity was found to be contrary to the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance for prior period expenses, finding that they were revenue in nature and crystallized in the current year, and that the CIT(A) correctly applied the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate administrative expenses considering average investment and allowed the deletion of the disallowance from book profit.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 147 were not fatal even if made on a dead person, provided the notice under section 143(2) was issued to a live person. Regarding additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide details of parties for cheque transactions, thus not allowing the application of the peak credit theory.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 147 were not fatal even if made on a dead person, provided the notice under section 143(2) was issued to a live person. Regarding additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide details of parties for cheque transactions, thus not allowing the application of the peak credit theory.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 147 were not fatal even if made on a dead person, provided the notice under section 143(2) was issued to a live person. Regarding additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide details of parties for cheque transactions, thus not allowing the application of the peak credit theory.