ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were quashed, there was no valid order for the PCIT to review under Section 263. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were quashed, there was no valid order for the PCIT to review under Section 263. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were quashed, there was no valid order for the PCIT to review under Section 263. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated contrary to the statutory provision of Section 271AAA(3), which prohibits penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income found during search proceedings. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal followed previous decisions of the ITAT and Gujarat High Court, holding that GUDA's activities were for general public utility and not in the nature of trade or business. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the write-off of the deposit with the liquidated bank was an allowable business expenditure. The assessee had followed RBI guidelines and the write-off was justified given the bank's precarious financial position and cancellation of its license.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the additional evidence without considering the remand report, which indicated that proper verification was not done during assessment due to departmental restructuring. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing evidence of donation transfer and confirmation of utilization. Following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions on similar facts, the claim was allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case. The court held that the assessee discharged their onus and the donation was made through banking channels to a notified institution at the time.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of the loan amount, being on capital account, is not in the nature of income. This is supported by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order, holding that the reopening was bad in law as the AO lacked valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reasons for reopening to be vague and lacking a direct nexus to escaped income.

The Tribunal held that if an amount has already been subjected to tax under Section 68 as undisclosed income, it cannot simultaneously be treated as a deposit or loan in violation of Section 269SS for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271D. The Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court judgments on this matter.

The Tribunal held that the statement made during a survey cannot be relied upon without cross-examination. Since the assessee had a valid certificate at the time of donation and a coordinate bench had previously ruled in favor of similar donations to HHBRF, the disallowance was not justified.

The tribunal held that the cooperative housing society was merely a facilitator and the individual members were the real owners of the property. Since the LTCG was already taxed in the hands of the individual members, taxing it again in the hands of the society would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to resolve the issue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the no objection from the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the scheme.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It restricted the disallowance under Section 14A based on previous ITAT decisions and allowed additional grounds regarding the computation of book profit. However, a ground related to ESIC contribution was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's upward adjustment for corporate guarantees was not justified, and the disallowance of depreciation on the car was incorrect as the assessee had beneficial ownership and used it for business. The adjustment for Section 14A in book profit computation was also deleted, following earlier precedents.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if the assessee claims exempt income. Since the assessee had not earned or claimed any exempt income, the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation disallowance, relying on High Court and Supreme Court decisions. Since the depreciation was deleted, the surcharge levied on the income was also rightly deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the addition in the quantum appeal was restricted to 15% on an estimated basis, it indicates that the balance amount was considered genuine. Therefore, there was no deliberate act by the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars, and penalty cannot be levied.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's upward adjustment for corporate guarantees was not justified, and the disallowance of depreciation on the car was incorrect as the assessee had beneficial ownership and used it for business. The adjustment for Section 14A in book profit computation was also deleted, following earlier precedents.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It restricted the disallowance under Section 14A based on previous ITAT decisions and allowed additional grounds regarding the computation of book profit. However, a ground related to ESIC contribution was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the cash subsidy received in earlier years cannot be taxed in the current assessment year. It also found that the assessee had correctly reduced the subsidy from actual project expenses and amortized the net amount over the concession period, as supported by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was detailed and reasoned, and no interference was required. The Tribunal noted that Basant Marketing P. Ltd.'s activities were found to be genuine in prior proceedings, and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the transactions.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the 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 held that the CIT(E) passed a non-speaking order and failed to consider the details furnished by the assessee, amounting to a miscarriage of justice. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application after examining all submitted documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition amounted to double taxation as the excess stock was already accounted for in the closing stock. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefits of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal, noting the approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request in accordance with the scheme's provisions.

The assessee-trust requested to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed as being withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as his application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the impugned transactions giving rise to the loss were genuine, considering that similar transactions were not disputed in subsequent assessment years and the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover interest-free advances. The disallowance of interest expenses was also directed to be re-adjudicated after verifying the availability of own funds exceeding interest-free advances.

The assessee-trust requested to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed as being withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal, noting the approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request in accordance with the scheme's provisions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the competent authority as required under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reopening after four years. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D cannot be invoked by the AO without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Regarding ESOP expenses, the Tribunal acknowledged their deductibility but remanded the issue to the AO for verification of actual expenses.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D cannot be invoked by the AO without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Regarding ESOP expenses, the Tribunal acknowledged their deductibility but remanded the issue to the AO for verification of actual expenses.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the competent authority as required under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reopening after four years. Consequently, all additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance, considering the short notice period and the fact that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.