ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2020

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not maintainable if there is no exempt income. The Tribunal also held that the AO and CIT(A) have a duty to assess the correct income and cannot insist on an incorrect disallowance made by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is to be claimed on the block of assets, not individual assets. Since no new asset was created, the assessee's claim for 50% depreciation on the block of assets was justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bills, payment details, and transport receipts, to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions with the sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer had not disproved these evidences.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation had ambiguities, the AO failed to conduct sufficient inquiry to disprove the assessee's claim of cheque discounting and recirculation of funds for trading. Therefore, the addition should be based on the peak negative balance in the account, not the total deposits.

The Tribunal held that the SPP was an integrated plant, and since the department accepted the installation and depreciation for other blocks owned by different entities, the same treatment should be extended to the assessees. The AO's denial of depreciation in the current year was considered a technical ground, as depreciation was allowed in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that the SPP was an integrated plant, and since the department accepted the installation and depreciation for other blocks owned by different entities, the same treatment should be extended to the assessees. The AO's denial of depreciation in the current year was considered a technical ground, as depreciation was allowed in the subsequent year.