ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance on expenses and the addition under Section 68. The decision was based on similar facts and grounds decided in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified. The transactions, primarily sales to sister concerns, did not fall under the definition of 'specified domestic transactions' as per Section 92BA, making the AO's inaction not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances made to its sister concern. Therefore, the interest expense incurred on borrowed funds used for these advances should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's detailed written submissions and supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Since the quantum appeals were allowed, the penalty orders arising from those assessment proceedings were rendered invalid. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that deduction under section 24(a) is not available to a charitable trust whose income is exempt under section 11. However, it allowed the depreciation claim by following a Gujarat High Court decision, noting the amendment to section 11(6) was applicable from an earlier date.

Since the quantum appeals were allowed, the penalty orders arising from those assessment proceedings were rendered invalid. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

Since the quantum appeals were allowed, the penalty orders arising from those assessment proceedings were rendered invalid. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi Bench judgments, found that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's view that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in denying indexation on costs incurred before March 21, 2000, and in treating the gain as short-term capital gain.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi Bench judgments, found that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, accepting the applicability of the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.