ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2020

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross-objections, finding sufficient cause. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross-objections, finding sufficient cause. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not in the nature of trade or business. It also held that excess capital expenditure could be carried forward, following Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable as it did not specify the exact charge, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be vague.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by not adhering to the ITAT's specific directions for comparison of rules and by considering other materials. The difference in nomination rules between ASE and BSE was not significant enough to deny depreciation.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2014), the phrase 'a residential house' in Section 54F did not restrict the exemption to only one residential unit. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption on both flats.

The Tribunal held that the entire contract receipt should not be taxed as income. It found that the assessee facilitated accommodation entries, similar to the sub-contractors. Therefore, only a reasonable commission income should be estimated and taxed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and not in the nature of trade or business. It also held that excess capital expenditure could be carried forward, following Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a constituted attorney, did not become the owner of the property and therefore, the addition of capital gains in his hands was not sustainable. It also noted that the stamp duty valuation on the date of registration cannot be considered the final valuation without referring the matter to the DVO.

The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding notional guarantee fees, deleting the adjustment based on a co-ordinate bench ruling. For the Section 10B issue, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of foreign exchange brought into India as per Section 155(11A).

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating the disallowance under Section 14A. It also ruled that expenses incurred and claimed in the same year are deductible, even if accounted differently in books, relying on Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating the disallowance under Section 14A. It also ruled that expenses incurred and claimed in the same year are deductible, even if accounted differently in books, relying on Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the unsecured loans was under litigation for a previous assessment year. Therefore, the issue in the current year depended on the outcome of that pending appeal.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds and interest-free borrowings, a presumption arises that investments are made from these funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure should be limited after considering these funds.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was in line with the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which allows for withdrawal of pending appeals upon filing a declaration under the scheme.

The assessee's authorized representative filed a written request seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The revenue representative had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the services provided did not make available technical knowledge or skill to the assessee, and therefore, did not fall under the definition of 'fees for included services' as per the India-USA DTAA. Consequently, tax was not required to be withheld.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on Section 14A disallowance, restricting it to the amount of exempt income. The appeal concerning depreciation on motor cars was dismissed. The disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 36(1)(iii) were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding them to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that for payments made after the amendment to Section 194C, no TDS was required if the transporter furnished its PAN. For interest-free advances, disallowance should be limited to the extent of borrowed funds not covered by the assessee's own capital.