ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal, relying on its own previous decisions on identical issues and similar facts, found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The previous decisions had ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the allowability of depreciation and capital expenditure as application of income, and the treatment of development funds.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's action in rejecting the assessee's method of stock valuation. However, it directed the AO to apply the same FIFO method for valuing the opening stock of the year, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the delay and lack of condonation. Furthermore, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee was not entitled to deduction for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on CBDT circulars and jurisdictional High Court rulings. These stated that TDS under Section 194C is not applicable when an advertising agency makes payments directly to media for advertisement expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's admission of a fictitious donation, which was returned in cash, distinguished the case from relied-upon precedents. The assessee failed to controvert these facts or provide supporting material.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the revised monetary limits set by the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it fell below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). It followed a coordinate bench's decision and the Gujarat High Court's ruling in a similar case, emphasizing the validity of the R&D unit's recognition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of adopting the valuation as assessed by the DVO under Section 50C(3) was correct. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India and no income accrued or arose in India, the provisions of Section 195 of the Act were not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance of commission expenses was incorrect.