ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT circular revising monetary limits for appeals. The tax effect of the disputed issues did not exceed the revised limit, making the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect does not exceed the revised monetary limit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Instruction No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the income derived from operating a mall, which involves providing various integrated services beyond mere property leasing, should be treated as business income. The authorities below erred in classifying it as income from house property.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals as well. Consequently, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs were dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the grounds of appeal back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the case afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the revision order itself is quashed, the subsequent assessment proceedings based on it become infructuous. Therefore, the impugned assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that new evidence was produced and directed the Assessing Officer to verify these evidences. The issue of depreciation and related expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the original order under Section 263 had been set aside by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, any order passed in pursuance of the Section 263 direction was rendered null and void. The appeal was allowed based on this procedural ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals set by a recent CBDT circular. This circular, which raised the limit to Rs. 50 lakhs, was applicable to pending cases.

The Tribunal held that income derived from operating a mall, which involves providing various services beyond mere property letting, constitutes business income. Therefore, the authorities below erred in treating it as income from house property.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to appear and did not provide any reason or seek an adjournment, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to appear and did not provide any reason or seek an adjournment, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim, and that unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year are not required to be set off against eligible profits for Section 80IA deduction. The Tribunal also ruled that interest on electricity deposits, recoveries from transporters, and sundry balances written back have a direct nexus with manufacturing activity and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim, and that unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year are not required to be set off against eligible profits for Section 80IA deduction. The Tribunal also ruled that interest on electricity deposits, recoveries from transporters, and sundry balances written back have a direct nexus with manufacturing activity and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim, and that unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year are not required to be set off against eligible profits for Section 80IA deduction. The Tribunal also ruled that interest on electricity deposits, recoveries from transporters, and sundry balances written back have a direct nexus with manufacturing activity and are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

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

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the issue of mutuality could not be decided based on the existing facts and records, as the conditions for mutuality were not properly examined by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that reimbursements of expenses do not require TDS deduction. Since the payments were for reimbursement and not for carrying out work, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the exhaust fan installed in the factory cannot be termed as revenue expenditure and dismissed that ground. However, following the principle of consistency with prior years' orders, the milling expenses were allowed. The employee skill enhancement cost for a partner's daughter's foreign MBA was disallowed as not being for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent Board resolution revising the interest rate to 18% was valid and that 18% was not an unreasonable rate for unsecured loans, especially considering the avoidance of bank guarantees and other formalities. Therefore, the disallowance was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) are not permissible for debatable issues requiring assessee explanation. Following the Kolkata High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted both disallowances.

The Tribunal allowed the vehicle maintenance expenses by following the Gujarat High Court's decision that personal element does not arise for a separate legal entity. For employee payments, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 50% based on a previous order for the same assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019, which revised monetary limits for departmental appeals, was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, and the related cross-objections by the assessees, were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment for the sole purpose of verification, without forming a belief that income has escaped assessment, is not sustainable. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the genuine medical reasons provided. Considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal decided to set aside the issue and remit it back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 4,32,094 contributed by the employer towards the superannuation fund was already offered to tax and reflected in Form 16. Therefore, making a further addition would amount to double addition.

The Tribunal noted that identical issues for earlier assessment years were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to ensure consistency and proper examination.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was repeatedly negligent in submitting documents, the additional evidence needed to be considered to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI made belatedly, even if paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The decision was based on the Gujarat High Court's ruling that such payments must be credited to the employee's account before the 'due date'.

The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with nationalized banks does not qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but allowed set-off of expenses against such interest income. The reopening of assessment was upheld, and the addition of profit on sale of lockers was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO had wrongly calculated the built-up area. The AO should have relied on the approved site plan and completion certificate unless physical inspection or expert opinion (like from DVO) provided contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was vitiated due to the non-furnishing of reasons to the assessee and the lack of a clear nexus between the material before the AO and the belief of escaped income. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the revenue failed to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the issue should be remitted back to the AO to determine the finality of the additions made in the hands of the company or other related parties before deciding on the protective addition in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not met. The issues raised by the PCIT were found to have been examined by the AO during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with nationalized banks does not qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but allowed net interest income to be considered for exemption. The reopening of assessment was upheld, and the profit on sale of lockers was treated as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows taking the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement, is applicable. The entire sale consideration was received by account payee cheque before the registration date.

The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits with nationalized banks does not qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but allowed set-off of expenses against such income. The reopening of assessment was upheld, and the profit on sale of lockers was correctly treated as income from other sources.

The Tribunal found that the plea regarding the validity of the approval was not properly raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to verify the approval and consider all pleas regarding the validity of reopening.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the approval for reopening was obtained from the correct authority was not properly verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify this fact and decide the validity of the reopening.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that deduction for employees' contribution is not allowable if not credited to the relevant fund on or before the due date, as per the Gujarat High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT's order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order, was quashed by the ITAT, the subsequent assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order confirming it were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the payment to the non-resident was not chargeable to tax in India as per the India-USA DTAA and the Supreme Court decision in GE India Technology Cen. (P.) Ltd., the provisions of Section 195 were not applicable. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was vitiated due to the non-furnishing of reasons to the assessee and the lack of a clear nexus between the material before the AO and the belief of escaped income. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the revenue failed to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that income derived from trust property should be determined on commercial principles. Adjusting earlier year's expenses against subsequent year's income is considered application of income for charitable purposes in the year of adjustment, as per Section 11(1)(a).