ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the evidence filed by the assessee and sought a remand report from the AO. Since the assessee delayed in providing documents to the lower authorities, the matter was set aside to the AO with a condition of depositing costs.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was not sustainable. The claim for depreciation on goodwill had attained finality in the initial year, and consistency principles should be applied.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 0.30% of circular trading purchases, amounting to Rs. 85,13,363/-. It was found that the transactions were for show turnover and incurred expenses at 0.28%.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee complies with Section 194C(6) by providing transporter details, a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not permissible solely for non-compliance with Section 194C(7). The genuineness of the expenses was not disproved by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the issue of self-assessment tax payment needed to be examined by the CIT(A) and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence. The appeal was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A).

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of all evidence, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging that the assessee lacked sufficient evidence earlier but had now filed a detailed paper book.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limit from the original assessment order. Therefore, the PCIT's order was quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The issue was considered academic as the foreign tax credit was expected to be allowed as a credit against taxes.

The Tribunal held that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years on identical facts. The CIT(A) had correctly followed these precedents and allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining supporting evidence. This was subject to the assessee depositing a cost for wasting the time of lower authorities due to non-furnishing of details.

The Tribunal held that imposing penalty at this stage is premature as the quantum addition, which forms the basis for penalty calculation, is still pending finalization. Therefore, the penalty issue should also be remitted to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation might be on the lower side and did not consider nearby sale instances. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh determination of the fair market value, potentially involving a further reference to the DVO.