ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals, as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. The withdrawal was in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of impossibility of performance applies when the assessee cannot comply with the requirements of Section 68 due to uncontrollable circumstances, such as manipulated entries. Therefore, the assessee cannot be penalized for failing to provide details of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of impossibility of performance applies when the assessee cannot comply with the requirements of Section 68 due to uncontrollable circumstances, such as manipulated entries. Therefore, the assessee cannot be penalized for failing to provide details of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of impossibility of performance applies when the assessee cannot comply with the requirements of Section 68 due to uncontrollable circumstances, such as manipulated entries. Therefore, the assessee cannot be penalized for failing to provide details of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions in such cases.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow any expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning the interest income. This implies that while the eligibility for deduction might be contested, related expenses should be considered.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that including CENVAT credit in closing stock was revenue neutral as the assessee consistently followed an exclusive method of accounting, and prior ITAT judgments supported this view.

The Tribunal held that the gains from the sale of land were to be treated as capital gains, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for unexplained unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to justify the credits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) may not have fully considered the assessee's submissions and documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals fall within the purview of the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as they fell within the purview of the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. The Revenue did not dispute the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were liable to be dismissed at the threshold due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue did not dispute the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the appeals fall within the purview of the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, disallowing them entirely would lead to double addition as the sales and closing stock related to these purchases were not doubted. Therefore, an element of profit on these purchases was to be added to the income.

The Tribunal held that registration with the STPI is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 10A, and physical location within the STPI complex is not a mandatory condition. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, disallowing them entirely would lead to double addition as the sales and closing stock related to these purchases were not doubted. Therefore, an element of profit on these purchases was to be added to the income.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the authorities. Relying on jurisdictional High Court and Apex Court judgments, it concluded that the reopening under Section 147 is unsustainable without fulfilling this mandatory requirement.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had substantial interest-free funds exceeding the advances made, the disallowance of interest on the advance was uncalled for. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal restricted it to the administrative expenses, considering the availability of sufficient interest-free funds for investments.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision for a similar assessment year, held that disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified due to substantial interest-free funds. However, disallowance for administrative expenses was restricted to Rs. 7 lacs.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following coordinate benches' decisions on identical issues for prior assessment years. The disallowances were deleted as the revenue failed to provide specific instances of excessive or unreasonable purchases.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as her application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a co-ordinate bench for re-adjudication. Therefore, the penalty issue was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to disallowance of interest expenses by following a co-ordinate bench decision and allowed the ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation. However, it dismissed the ground related to employee's contribution to PF/ESIC.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made proper inquiries and verified the details submitted by the assessee regarding the foreign exchange premium expenditure. The Pr. CIT failed to controvert the facts and materials presented by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the actual dividend income earned. For the land investment, it confirmed the addition as the assessee failed to explain the source of investment. For cash credits, it deleted the addition for opening balances but allowed the appeal regarding new deposits, finding the CIT(A)'s decision unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance. It found that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was on account of reinstatement of debtors and creditors and was accounted for in accordance with Accounting Standard-11, and was reversed in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The withdrawal was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' requests for withdrawal of appeals, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, had been approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the lenders had sufficient funds as they had recalled loans from a family company. Therefore, their capacity to lend to the assessee, a family member, could not be doubted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was hit by the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred for R&D for manufacturing customized products can be considered under Section 35(1)(iv) r.w.s. 35(2)(ia) of the Act. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.