ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that an agreement enforceable in law was executed on 30.12.2010, supported by part payment received through banking channels, which was also recognized in the sale deed. The Tribunal found that the circle rate at the time of agreement execution was lesser than the value adopted in the sale deed. Citing the decision in Rahul G. Patel Vs. DCIT (authored by one of the Tribunal members), the Tribunal concluded that the facts of the present case were fully applicable. Therefore, the full sale consideration for computing long-term capital gain should be adopted at Rs. 81 lakhs, representing 25% of Rs. 3,24,00,000/-. The addition of Rs. 50,20,750/- was thus deleted. Grounds related to receipt of Rs. 20,10,000/-, charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) were dismissed as not pressed, consequential, or premature, respectively.

The Tribunal found that the impugned loans were genuine and no addition was made under Section 68. Considering the plausibility of the explanation, the Tribunal held that a reasonable cause existed for the contravention.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the re-worked disallowance under Section 14A and confirming the deletion of bad debt disallowance based on established legal precedents.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The CIT(A) was instructed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to grant the assessee a further opportunity to present a reconciliation statement and evidence to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering all evidence.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to conduct a detailed inquiry into whether the advances were for purchases and services. If proven, the addition would be deleted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The tribunal set aside the addition to closing stock and remitted it to the AO for fresh verification, stating that if the accounting method is tax-neutral, no addition is permissible. The addition on account of short receipts was dismissed, and the disallowance for training expenses was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which enhances monetary limits for appeals and is applicable to pending appeals, mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect does not exceed the revised limit. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed in limine.

The assessee's advocate requested to withdraw the appeals. The Tribunal, with no objection from the revenue, allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding cessation of liability as payments were made or written back. For Section 40(a)(ia), it allowed part of the disallowance as expenses were not claimed. The exhibition expenses issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the entire amount of excess stock and unaccounted receivables cannot be treated as income. Only the profit element embedded in these transactions should be brought to tax. The profit rate was determined at 5% of the combined amount.

The Tribunal held that transactions with associated enterprises, even within India, cannot be considered as comparable uncontrolled transactions for determining arm's length price. The authorities have a duty to rectify mistakes in the assessee's interpretation of tax provisions.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempted income earned. Furthermore, disallowances under Section 14A cannot be imported while determining income under Section 115JB, but an independent disallowance of 1% of exempted income was directed for Section 115JB computation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals and the revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on the basis of income disclosed after receiving a notice or during survey proceedings, especially when no incriminating documents were found. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in MAK Data (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. They also allowed depreciation on vehicles purchased during the year, holding that they were ready for use from the date of purchase, irrespective of the registration date.

The Tribunal held that the 15% accumulation entitlement under Section 11(1)(a) cannot be applied to reduce the deficit carry forward when the trust has actually spent in excess of its receipts. Such reduction is devoid of logic and repugnant to the intended outcome.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any cogent explanation or documentary evidence for the source of acquisition of the silver bars. The explanation provided was generic and not corroborated with factual details.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Based on the assessee's prayer, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's books of accounts but agreed with the estimation of net profit at 7% of the total turnover. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, considering the contract was completed to the satisfaction of the main contractee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's books of accounts but agreed with the estimation of net profit at 7% of the total turnover. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, considering the contract was completed to the satisfaction of the main contractee.