ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals in accordance with the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. It was noted that if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme, the assessees could file miscellaneous applications to restore the original appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The Tribunal also clarified that if an assessee fails to avail the scheme for a genuine reason, they can seek restoration of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the earlier agreements to sell were between individuals and not the assessee firm, which was formed later. Furthermore, these agreements were cancelled the next day, and the advance payment was refunded. Therefore, the suppression of sale consideration could not be attributed to the assessee firm.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the institution had a valid registration under Section 35(1)(ii) and Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The cancellation of the institution's registration occurred later, and the assessee had no mechanism to verify the institution's genuineness at the time of donation.

The Tribunal found the assessee's plea for not providing documents earlier to be genuine. It was decided that these documents are crucial for a proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was clarified that if the assessees fail to avail the benefits of the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of their original appeals.

The Tribunal held that the income from the supply of equipment and spares was not taxable in India as the contract was treated as separate, and the risk and title transferred outside India. The Tribunal relied on its own prior decision in similar cases for the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was then dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the income derived from letting out commercial space in the mall, along with various services provided, constitutes business income. It directed that the income be treated as profits and gains from business or profession.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision on identical facts and held that expenses incurred in connection with the increase of authorized share capital are allowable under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was valid as the AO had not formed an opinion on the applicability of Section 50C in the original assessment. The mere production of documents did not imply the AO had examined the issue of deemed sale consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular restricting appeals based on tax effect is applicable to pending appeals. As the tax effect in this case was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and did not fall under any exceptions, the appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical glitches. On merits, it held that interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes is allowable, even if the loan was for acquiring a capital asset, provided the asset is put to use.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV Scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal of the appeal. The request was allowed in accordance with the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue falls within the purview of the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that if an assessee fails to avail the scheme for a genuine reason, they can seek restoration of the original appeals.

The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical errors and issued a corrigendum to rectify them. The corrections involved updating the assessee's name, PAN, and assessment year as per the application.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid as the AO used material already available during the original assessment. The Tribunal also noted the principle of consistency, as the exemption was allowed in previous years without any change in facts or law.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals and cross objections. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was negligent, outright rejection of the registration application without considering the submitted details was disproportionate. The assessee was granted one more opportunity.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that if the assessees fail to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of their appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals. It was clarified that if the assessees fail to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the original appeals.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The assessee is at liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remains unresolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the seismic survey equipment used in mineral oil exploration projects is eligible for a special depreciation rate of 60% as it falls under the category of 'Mineral oil concerns'. Ancillary items like geophone strings and cables are also eligible for this higher rate.

The Tribunal held that the seismic survey equipment used in mineral oil exploration projects is eligible for a special depreciation rate of 60% as it falls under the category of 'Mineral oil concerns'. Ancillary items like geophone strings and cables are also eligible for this higher rate.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B is to be allowed on a standalone basis for the eligible undertaking, prior to the set-off and carry-forward provisions under Chapter VI. The CBDT circular was found to be in conflict with Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the case under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee intended to resolve the issue through the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 50 lakh disclosed income should be treated as 'income from other sources' and not as business income. Crucially, it noted that the disallowance of set-off for business losses in Section 115BBE was introduced only from April 1, 2017, making it inapplicable to the assessment year 2015-16.

The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis for the penalty has been deleted and confirmed as deleted by the ITAT, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot stand. Therefore, the penalty order is unsustainable.

Since the additions that formed the basis for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed is no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty is cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits, even in ex parte orders. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the restriction of disallowance to Rs. 4,87,675 by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV benefit could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal granted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV Scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient company must be a shareholder in the lending company. Since the assessee was not a shareholder in JP Escon Ltd., the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not attracted.

The Tribunal allowed the taxpayers' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that if a taxpayer fails to avail the Vivad se Vishwas scheme for a valid reason, they can seek restoration of the original appeals.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and applications of the assessees for withdrawal of appeals. In light of the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the requests for withdrawal were allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's written request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to question the SEZ approval granted by the Board of Approval. Regarding capital work-in-progress, the Tribunal noted it was not debited to the P&L account and thus disallowance was not applicable for the current year. Interest income was held to be business income.

The Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to question the SEZ approval granted by the Board of Approval. Regarding capital work-in-progress, the Tribunal noted it was not debited to the P&L account and thus disallowance was not applicable for the current year. Interest income was held to be business income.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the VSV Scheme and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn under the scheme.