ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2021

The tribunal noted that the assessee had completed the necessary formalities for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had completed the formalities. Therefore, the appeal was withdrawn as per the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. 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 partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of interest expenses, limiting it to Rs. 26,20,068/-. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning additional depreciation on certain assets.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench on identical facts and for the same assessee. This prior decision had allowed the appeal, finding that the CIT(A) had not followed proper procedure and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that additional evidence filed by the assessee could not be admitted as sufficient cause was not provided. Consequently, the order of the authorities below was confirmed regarding the disallowed export commission.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as requested by the assessees. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of the appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that trading advances received in the ordinary course of business do not constitute loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e), even if used for personal purposes. The usage of trading receipts cannot change their character from business transactions.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific evidence of the donation being bogus or repaid in cash. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged their onus and the donation could not be doubted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if they failed to avail the benefits of the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory even for assessments framed under section 147. The absence of such a notice renders the assessment invalid and cannot be cured by section 292BB.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot survive in the absence of a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made in the hands of other individuals, the protective assessment in the assessee's case was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was based on their decision to participate in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment order as the brought forward losses had been allowed in earlier assessment years and were not subject to re-enquiry in the current year. The revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending and accordingly dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by estimating a flat 15% profit on share transactions without proper verification from the share broker or exchanges was illegal and a miscarriage of justice. The actual result of the transactions was a loss.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB. However, an independent disallowance of 1% of exempted income was directed for Section 115JB computation.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business, as the outcome was utilized by group companies. Therefore, the entire claim could not be allowed as a deduction under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The payment of liabilities in subsequent years and the recording of income in audited books, even if inadvertently not offered to tax, indicated no deliberate intent to mislead.

The Tribunal held that Section 271C of the Act is attracted only when there is a failure to deduct TDS, not for failure to deposit the deducted TDS. The Tribunal also noted that the Kerala High Court judgment relied upon by the lower authorities was overruled by a Full Bench.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to pursue the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. However, it granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt a lower property valuation of Rs. 1,43,80,860. The AO's higher valuation was found to be unsubstantiated.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot arbitrarily reject the valuation report of a registered valuer for the cost of acquisition without referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 55A. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the land was jointly held, and the entire capital gain should not be taxed in the hands of one assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot estimate profit and make additions to total income without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts, especially when no defects were pointed out. The assessee's books were duly audited and verified on a test check basis.

The ITAT dismissed the disallowance of administrative expenses and deduction under Section 80IA as not pressed. The issue of sales tax incentive was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of depreciation, insurance, and interest on certain assets was deleted. The disallowance of export freight expenses due to non-deduction of TDS was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the insurance claim received against vehicle damage should be offered to tax and confirmed the disallowance. For unreconciled credit balances and outstanding creditors, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing deletion of certain additions while sustaining others. Regarding vehicle expenses, the Tribunal directed deletion of disallowance on depreciation and restricted the disallowance on other vehicle expenses to 12%.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry during the assessment. The variation in property valuation was within the tolerable limit, and encroachment on the land was a material fact considered by the AO. The Pr. CIT's order was therefore not sustainable.

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

The Tribunal considered the submissions and applications for withdrawal, referencing the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. After confirming tax payments under the scheme, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal requests.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was based on a flawed premise regarding the nature of the trust, which was later corrected by a corrigendum. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that disallowance of sundry creditors was incorrect as sales against these purchases were not disturbed and payments were made through banking channels. It also allowed the ground regarding capital gains, stating that notional capital gains cannot be added when the property was not sold and was shown as an investment.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient land for cultivation and supported the closure of the buyer's business with affidavits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the AO disallowed the entire claim due to foreign travel, the assessee was entitled to exemption for the portion spent on domestic travel. Since this bifurcation was not available to the AO during the assessment, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO's penalty order was sustainable as it clearly recorded a finding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, and did not suffer from ambiguity regarding the nature of the default.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal also granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the dispute resolution under the VSV scheme was a matter for the revenue authorities. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have considered the income declared by the assessee in its original return as the 'returned income' for the purpose of section 143(3) assessment. The Tribunal found the mistake to be apparent and the rectification application to be within the limitation period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid, particularly for AY 2009-10 due to the expiry of the four-year limitation period without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid, particularly for AY 2009-10 due to the expiry of the four-year limitation period without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid, particularly for AY 2009-10 due to the expiry of the four-year limitation period without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso.

The Tribunal held that when interest income exceeds interest expenses, no disallowance under section 14A for interest is warranted. For administrative expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,50,000 per assessment year to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the discount on prepaid vouchers sold on a principal-to-principal basis is not commission, and thus TDS under Section 194H is not applicable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The assessee was granted liberty to refile if any issue remained unresolved.