ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2019

The Tribunal noted the absence of Form 16/16A or Form 26AS as evidence of TDS deduction. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of specific documents to be produced by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a draft order under Section 154 is not mandatory for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, even if it relates to assessment proceedings. The assessee's other contentions regarding piecemeal rectification were also rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained the required registration through a subsequent application. Therefore, the assessee no longer wished to pursue the present appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allocate head office expenses to the eligible units for calculating Section 80IA deduction. It reasoned that common expenses borne by the head office should be allocated to ensure correct profit calculation for the unit claiming deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allocate head office expenses to the eligible units for calculating Section 80IA deduction. It found that common expenses incurred at the head office should be allocated to all units to determine the correct profit of each unit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allocate head office expenses to the power project, stating that common expenses should be allocated to determine the correct profit of the unit. The Tribunal also referred to a CBDT circular regarding the option to choose the initial assessment year for Section 80IA deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments and that the deduction under Section 80IA was correctly allowed in prior years and similar facts applied.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed his own prior order, which had attained finality, treating similar gains as capital gains. The principle of consistency and res judicata in tax matters was applied.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deletion of the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, even if it meant granting relief beyond what was claimed in the return.

The Tribunal held that the amortization of premium on government securities held to maturity is permissible. This decision followed a coordinate bench ruling which relied on a jurisdictional High Court judgment and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal found that the matter was decided ex-parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as the AO had already inquired into the matter during the original scrutiny assessment. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were solely based on the show-cause notice from the Excise Department, which was subsequently decided in favor of the assessee by the CESTAT and other higher authorities. Therefore, the basis for the additions no longer survived.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000 on interest, holding that if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, the interest on borrowed funds is not disallowable. The issue of commodity loss was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the waiver of the loan did not amount to the cessation of a trading liability, and no deduction for interest payment was claimed in prior years. Section 28(iv) was also deemed inapplicable as the receipt was in cash.