ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit. The Revenue's counsel admitted the applicability of the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The cross-objections filed by the assessees were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it fell below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by a recent CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets monetary limits for tax effects of pending appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). Consequently, the assessee's appeal on this technical ground was allowed. Other grounds were decided based on previous orders and legal precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs. The Revenue's counsel conceded to the applicability of the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment order was barred by limitation. It was held that the period during which the assessment proceedings were stayed by the High Court must be excluded, and the subsequent 60-day period for passing the order was also not adhered to.

The tribunal noted the assessee's submission that they did not want to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue's counsel conceded to the applicability of the circular.

The Tribunal held that the revisional order was unsustainable due to a lack of effective opportunity for the assessee to be heard and a violation of principles of natural justice. The show cause notice was vague, and the PCIT made adverse conclusions without proper inquiry.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition for depreciation disallowance, restricted the disallowance of other expenses to 10%, and set aside the issue of interest income to the AO for fresh adjudication due to non-furnishing of Form 26AS.

The Tribunal decided that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D were attracted, and a disallowance was called for. However, certain aspects of the disallowance, particularly concerning interest on term loans and investments made out of own funds, were to be considered differently.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 33.50 lakhs due to duplication, as these amounts were already included in the credits of the Central Bank of India. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 57 lakhs made for investment by the daughter-in-law, as the assessee admitted providing the funds and failed to explain the source.

The Tribunal found that the loose paper relied upon by the AO for land purchase additions was a 'dumb document' without supporting evidence. The assessee's ground regarding the maintainability of proceedings was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on security deposits made for a project, before commencement of commercial operations, should be reduced from the project cost. It also held that the unutilized CENVAT credit, when accounted for consistently, does not warrant an addition to income.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was deemed retrospective and applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was deemed retrospective and applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this preliminary ground.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not argued by the assessee and thus rejected. Regarding the addition, it was held that the income was already taxed in AY 2011-12 based on a previous Tribunal ruling, and therefore, could not be taxed again.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular. The Revenue did not dispute the applicability of the circular.

The Tribunal held that the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act creates a legal fiction of partition upon the death of a coparcener, leading to devolution by succession. Therefore, the HUF is taxable only on its share of the capital gains, not the entire amount.

The Tribunal held that Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act creates a legal fiction of partition upon intestate death, leading to devolution of property by succession. Therefore, the HUF is taxable only on half of the capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish that the disclosed income was based on incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed additions did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs and was therefore covered by CBDT Instruction No. 17 of 2019. The appeal was dismissed based on this instruction.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were no longer maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal falls within the purview of the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the professional fees paid to doctors were not in violation of MCI Guidelines or CBDT Circulars and were allowable as business expenditure. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be correct.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The assessee's cross-objection was not pressed and was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that both provisions were ascertained liabilities, made in compliance with NABARD guidelines and board resolutions. Therefore, the disallowance by the AO and confirmation by the CIT(A) were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the appeal falls within the purview of the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at the threshold.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were no longer maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the professional fees paid to doctors were not in violation of MCI Guidelines or CBDT Circulars and were allowable as business expenditure. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be correct.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish that the disclosed income was based on incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AAB was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when the final assessment is made under Section 115JB and the additions were made under normal provisions. This is supported by CBDT Circular No. 25/2015.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the claimed capital loss. It found that the transactions were not genuine sales but an arrangement within the family to avoid tax, as the shares did not truly move out of the family's control.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits was not sustainable. The tribunal found the order to be non-speaking and not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal observed that the AO did not sufficiently disprove the assessee's explanations for cash deposits and credit entries. The AO also failed to issue a show cause notice before rejecting certain claims. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, remanding certain issues back to the AO for further verification. Specifically, issues related to Section 40A(3), Section 40(a)(ia), and Section 68 were either confirmed, partly allowed, or remanded.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's disallowance was not entirely justified based solely on the information from the Commercial Tax Department and the suppliers not appearing, the assessee also failed to provide complete confirmations. Therefore, a partial disallowance of 15% of the claimed expenses was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the issue of depreciation allowance for charitable trusts is covered by various High Court judgments. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of set-off of losses was settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added back while computing book profit under Section 115JB. Therefore, the addition made to the book profit under Section 115JB on account of Section 14A disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made at a time when the donee institution was approved. The cancellation of approval happened later and there was no mechanism for the assessee to verify the donee's genuineness at the time of donation. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches. The disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted, as the assessee's case was factually and legally similar to previous favorable rulings.

The Tribunal held that the extended credit period provided to the Associated Enterprise (AE) was already factored into the higher sale price charged. Therefore, it should not be considered a separate international transaction warranting an upward adjustment. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee allowed credit periods beyond 90 days to non-associated enterprises, making the transactions with AEs comparable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, remanding certain issues back to the AO for further verification. Specifically, issues related to Section 40A(3), Section 40(a)(ia), and Section 68 were either confirmed, partly allowed, or remanded.

The Tribunal noted that the additions forming the basis of the penalty were set aside by a coordinate bench and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 153A is to be considered as a return filed under Section 139, and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income declared in such a return when no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was not justified as the recipients were assessed at the maximum marginal rate, preventing double taxation. However, the judgment implies that the issue of closing stock valuation was not fully resolved in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if the assessee has earned exempt income. In the absence of any exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable, aligning with various High Court and Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that disallowance computed under Section 14A cannot be imported for adjustment in book profit under Section 115JB. The assessment order was not erroneous, thus the prerequisite for invoking Section 263 was not fulfilled.