ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the period prescribed by the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was void ab initio and bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to genuine administrative reasons. It directed the AO to exclude specific amounts related to travel to Andaman & Nicobar Islands from the total disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine due to the assessee's persistent failure to appear and pursue the appeals. The assessee was given liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the appeal electronically and directed the CIT(A) to admit the e-appeal for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the one-time admission fees are capital receipts and not includible in the total income. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The assessee's advocate requested to withdraw the appeals. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee derived any benefit from the cessation or remission of liabilities, nor that such cessation or remission actually took place in the year under consideration. The Tribunal also noted that no written off of the liability was done in the books of accounts.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including agreements, details of services, and TDS deductions, to support the commission payments. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and directed the deletion of the additions.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The assessee's appeal was allowed, directing the deletion of the addition made on account of advance receipts treated as contract income.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence linking the alleged bogus purchases to the assessee for that specific year. For AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Tribunal allowed estimation of profit at 6% on the disputed purchases, considering the assessee had already declared gross profit.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence linking the alleged bogus purchases to the assessee for that specific year. For AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Tribunal allowed estimation of profit at 6% on the disputed purchases, considering the assessee had already declared gross profit.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, the addition was not sustainable as the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence linking the alleged bogus purchases to the assessee for that specific year. For AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Tribunal allowed estimation of profit at 6% on the disputed purchases, considering the assessee had already declared gross profit.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The assessee's appeal was allowed, directing the deletion of the addition made on account of advance receipts treated as contract income.

The Tribunal held that the AO/DRP erred in their findings regarding the taxation of income from maintenance spares. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and directed them to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments, creating a presumption that investments were made from these funds. However, some administrative expenditure for managing investments could not be ruled out.

The tribunal held that the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was not allowable as the assessee did not fulfill the conditions. It also held that interest income on the North Kerala Project Development Fund was taxable and contributions to the Employees Recreation Trust were not deductible. However, the write-back of excess provision was not taxable.

The tribunal held that the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was not allowable as the assessee did not fulfill the conditions. It also held that interest income on the North Kerala Project Development Fund was taxable and contributions to the Employees Recreation Trust were not deductible. However, the write-back of excess provision was not taxable.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that the assessee failed to disclose material facts. It also confirmed the addition of the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases as income.

The Tribunal held that the payments were made for statutory requirements related to a business loan and were routed through an intermediary to the government. The Tribunal found that these payments fell under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules, making the disallowance unwarranted.

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and any petition for adjournment, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was served with the notice of hearing but did not appear, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issue was already considered and decided by the CIT(A). Furthermore, the Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision that only net interest expenditure should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on surplus funds deposited with nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, any expenditure incurred to earn this interest income should be allowed, and only the net interest income should be excluded from the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced depreciation rate of 50% on new commercial vehicles acquired within the stipulated period is applicable to subsequent years as well. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that an audit was not required due to the loss from share transactions. Given the substantial compliance and lack of infirmity in the subsequently provided audit report, the penalty under Section 271B was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the assets of another charitable trust with identical objects, especially when mandated by a statutory provision, is a proper application of income for charitable purposes. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that no addition under Section 145A was warranted as the assessee had already accounted for it in an income-neutral manner. It further held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains are eligible for deduction under Section 10B as they arise from export sales.