ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal held that the revised return for AY 2011-12 was not considered by the lower authorities and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The appeal for AY 2012-13 was disposed of as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the AO, being of a lower rank than the Joint Commissioner who imposes the penalty, could not form the requisite 'satisfaction' for initiating penalty proceedings. On merits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the payments were for trade purchases and not loans/deposits.

The Tribunal held that the revised return for AY 2011-12 was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. The appeal for AY 2012-13 was disposed of as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, considering the short period of delay and the explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error. It noted that the AO failed to substantiate the claim that the sub-contract transactions were not recorded in the assessee's books, and the CIT(A) had provided evidence to the contrary.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as its application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved.

The Tribunal held that Section 195 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the reimbursement of demurrage charges paid to a non-resident shipping company, as such payments are covered under Section 172 of the Act. The assessee had provided all necessary documentation and relied on CBDT circulars and judicial precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee were genuine and related to technical difficulties with e-filing. The Tribunal also decided to adjudicate the grounds related to disallowance of interest and employee's contribution to PF.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee were genuine and related to technical difficulties with e-filing. The Tribunal also decided to adjudicate the grounds related to disallowance of interest and employee's contribution to PF.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's blending activity qualifies as manufacturing under the SEZ Act, making it eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. Income from currency fluctuation and interest also qualified for deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a coordinate bench's decision in favor of a co-owner of the same property. The assessee was granted the benefit of Section 54F exemption.

The Tribunal held that income arising as a result of export business, including incidental profits like subsidies, is eligible for deduction under Section 10A. The statutory formula in Section 10A(4) for calculating deduction is to be applied.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs, was applicable. The Revenue's appeals were therefore dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that since the revisional order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment, was set aside by the Tribunal in a separate appeal, the entire assessment proceedings became a nullity.