ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that since the confirming party (builder) had declared the income in its return, the same income could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash depositors. The mere submission of a common affidavit and identity proofs of the creditors was insufficient to substantiate the claim of cash loans.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue. This was based on the assessee's claim that the additions were covered by their disclosure before the Settlement Commission, a claim not controverted by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A must be allowed before setting off brought forward losses, as per the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the revision order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for passing an order under Section 201(3) is procedural and amended provisions apply retrospectively if the cause of action is subsisting. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed exemption under sections 11 & 12. It found that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to Section 2(15) and that donations and losses on sale of assets were allowable applications of income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed exemption under sections 11 & 12. It found that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to Section 2(15) and that donations and losses on sale of assets were allowable applications of income.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were to be dismissed as not maintainable due to the applicability of the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed exemption under sections 11 & 12. It found that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to Section 2(15) and that donations and losses on sale of assets were allowable applications of income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was justified as the assessee failed to maintain proper records. However, the transfer pricing adjustments related to software services and human resource management services were deleted based on a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was justified as the assessee failed to maintain proper records. However, the transfer pricing adjustments related to software services and human resource management services were deleted based on a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was justified as the assessee failed to maintain proper records. However, the transfer pricing adjustments related to software services and human resource management services were deleted based on a coordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the applicability of the CBDT circular. The circular mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect does not exceed the revised monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed exemption under sections 11 & 12. It found that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to Section 2(15) and that donations and losses on sale of assets were allowable applications of income.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions/disallowances, which formed the basis for the penalty, were reversed by a co-ordinate bench in quantum proceedings, the penalty could not survive.

The Tribunal held that the execution of the sale deed in pursuance to a court order relates back to the original agreement to sell, entitling the assessee to reckon the holding period from the date of the agreement. The issue regarding the cost of improvement was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible in the absence of exempt income, citing High Court and Supreme Court precedents. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) based on prior decisions in the assessee's own case.

The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal granted the prayer for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was justified as the assessee failed to maintain proper records. However, the transfer pricing adjustments related to software services and human resource management services were deleted based on a coordinate bench's decision.

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 with a tax effect below a revised monetary limit. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting as an agent and had collected Form 15-I from truck owners before making payments, thus not liable for TDS deduction. The non-submission of Form 15-J was considered a procedural lapse.