ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal held that a wrong claim of expenditure, even if disallowed, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. to differentiate between a wrong claim and inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to an appropriate refund when their income is assessed at a lower figure than originally returned, as a matter of law. The decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. does not prevent this logical consequence.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of a dated approval under Section 151 and, more importantly, the mandatory non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to a notice under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that Section 139(3) of the IT Act was not applicable for carry forward of losses in this case. The income earned was considered diverted at source due to statutory obligations.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any new material. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was a security deposit given for business expediency and not a loan or advance falling under Section 2(22)(e). The revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any new material. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that commencement of activities is not an essential condition for registration under section 12AA, and the genuineness of the objects should be examined. Since the trust's objects were charitable and it was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, the CIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income in their return filed under Section 153A and no addition was made by the Assessing Officer to the returned income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench decision and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any new material. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on sundry creditors. For labour expenses, the Tribunal confirmed a lump-sum disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000, considering past performance. The depreciation claim was partly allowed and set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable for the period the tax was not paid by either the assessee or the payee. Therefore, the AO's levy of interest was considered correct.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not doubt the donation solely on the basis of general information from a survey report. There was no specific evidence or cross-examination of the donee's representatives to prove the donation was bogus or repaid in cash.

The Tribunal held that the interest rate paid on unsecured loans from relatives was not excessive, considering the risk factor and lack of collateral. The distinction made by the CIT(A) for new relatives was artificial.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have granted one more opportunity to the assessee, considering the reason for the adjournment and the disproportionate punishment. The ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee claimed the deduction under a bona fide belief, supported by past allowances and a clause in the agreement with the Government. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence of share trading income and the assessee's plea for a reasonable cause for non-compliance, restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 12,500 per case was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under section 80IB(11A) is not admissible for AY 2014-15 as it falls beyond the 10-year period from the initial year. The appeal was also noted to be time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the valuer's report and arbitrarily adopting a single sale instance. It directed the AO to compute capital gains using the land rate of Rs. 150 per sq. meter as on 01.04.1981. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the Rs. 20 lakhs addition, considering it as an improvement cost.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to lay his hand on evidence exhibiting that the assessee made investments not recorded in its books of accounts and failed to explain the source of such investments, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 69. The Tribunal noted that Section 69 requires an investment not recorded in the books and an unsatisfactory explanation from the assessee. The assessee's submissions detailed a joint venture agreement, a land purchase with conditions, and subsequent issues with vacant possession due to encroachments. The assessee argued that due to these issues, cheques were not encashed and became time-barred, with the dispute resolved in 2015. The Tribunal found that in the year under consideration (Assessment Year 2012-13), no payment was made by the assessee, and no asset came into existence in the assessee's name that required to be shown in its books. The AO had simply assumed the existence of an unexplained asset. Therefore, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition made by the AO was incorrect and deleted the same. The ground of appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB is attracted only for undisclosed income found during search, not for voluntary disclosures. Since no incriminating material was found, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest income from scheduled banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but the net interest income should be disallowed. However, interest income earned from cooperative banks/societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that interest income from scheduled banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but the net interest income should be disallowed. However, interest income earned from cooperative banks/societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from scheduled banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but the net interest income should be disallowed. However, interest income earned from cooperative banks/societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper adjudication of the issues raised by the assessee. Consequently, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the initial admission and subsequent disclosure in response to search materials attracted Explanation 5A, the issue of whether the land was a capital asset needed to be examined independently for penalty purposes.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which had decided similar issues in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that interest disallowance on capital work in progress and on non-interest bearing fund advances was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for relinquishment of the 'right to sue' is of a capital nature and not chargeable to tax. This is because a 'right to sue' is not a capital asset and the compensation received is akin to damages for breach of contract.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. It found that interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes and advances to sister concerns for commercial expediency or from surplus funds were allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption notifications regarding raw material procured duty-free, as duties on final products were already confirmed. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue did not provide contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54F for both bungalows as they were used as a single residential unit and the statute does not define the area of a residential property. The amendment regarding 'one residential house' is applicable when properties are in different geographical areas, not when adjacent properties are used as one unit.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the disallowance, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the case of State Road Transport Corporation. The assessee's failure to deposit the contributions within the prescribed time, as per Section 36(1)(va), led to the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption notifications regarding raw material procured duty-free, as duties on final products were already confirmed. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue did not provide contrary evidence.