ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal held that the date of arrival in India should be excluded when calculating the period of stay for determining residential status. Consequently, the assessee's stay was found to be less than 182 days, making him a non-resident.

The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on medical grounds. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This was subject to the condition that the appellant pays a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the department within 60 days.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee based on the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered into with the CBDT. The Tribunal found the Revenue's grounds of appeal to be devoid of merit.

The Tribunal held that the capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely based on investigation reports concerning third parties without cogent material against the specific assessee. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence of share purchases and sales through banking channels.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal 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's benefits.

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 set aside the issue to the AO to consider the case afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been approved. The withdrawal was in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.

The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and set aside both matters back to the AO. The assessee is directed to file all relevant books of account and documents before the AO for a fresh assessment.

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.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Section 36(i)(iii) was not sustainable. This was because the assessee's own funds and interest-free funds available were greater than the amount of advances that were not accepted by the CIT(A) as being for business purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This decision was made based on the prayer made by the assessee's counsel.

The assessee's advocate requested to withdraw the appeal. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) and file submissions.

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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, acknowledging the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 regarding the monetary limit for appeals.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in conformity with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was not a reasoned order on merit. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding year, which treated 60% of gross agricultural receipts as agricultural income. Accordingly, the assessee's agricultural income was determined at Rs. 5,22,597, and the remaining Rs. 2,37,071 was confirmed as income from undisclosed sources.

The Tribunal held that the net profit, after apportionment of expenses, should be considered for taxation from ghee sales. It also directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 50,000 under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii).

The Tribunal held that the net profit, after apportionment of expenses, should be considered for taxation from ghee sales. It also directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 50,000 under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii).

The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, some in favor of the assessee and some in favor of the Revenue, often remanding issues for statistical purposes. Specific decisions were made regarding disallowances under Section 14A and other additions/deletions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The quantum addition and the penalty were both set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were crystallized during the year under consideration as the lease renewal dispute was settled and the payment was made in the relevant financial year. Therefore, the disallowance was unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, interest, and insurance on vehicles, following previous ITAT decisions. Similarly, the appeal concerning penalties and bad debts was also dismissed, relying on prior rulings that the losses related to clients and not the assessee's own speculative business.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary and rent based solely on previous year's disallowance without considering fair market value or business needs was incorrect. The issue of trading loss versus bad debt and the addition to capital required further examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding depreciation, interest, and insurance on vehicles, following previous ITAT decisions. Similarly, the appeal concerning penalties and bad debts was also dismissed, relying on prior rulings that the losses related to clients and not the assessee's own speculative business.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary and rent based solely on previous year's disallowance without considering fair market value or business needs was incorrect. The issue of trading loss versus bad debt and the addition to capital required further examination.

The Tribunal held that while Section 50C substitutes the sale consideration with stamp duty valuation, the AO must still compute capital gains by deducting the cost of acquisition. The case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and can be levied even if Section 200A does not explicitly provide for its computation. The interest under Section 220(2) was considered consequential.

The Tribunal noted that while accounting entries can be a valid mode of payment in certain circumstances, the genuineness of the transaction must be proven. Since the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the land purchase claim, the penalty was not deleted outright.

The Tribunal held that oil wells are plant and machinery, eligible for depreciation at a higher rate, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The reassessment was also found to be based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the disallowance for testing charges as the assessee only reimbursed expenses. It also agreed that interest income from surplus funds should be included for calculating partner remuneration, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order was ex-parte and the addition was made on the entire sale consideration instead of capital gains. Since the merits were not decided by the CIT(A), the issue was set aside to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that while the AO can scrutinize a valuation report, they cannot arbitrarily reject it or change the valuation method. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's failure to provide the project report used for valuation to the lower authorities.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the appeals were covered by the CBDT Circular, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs. The Revenue's appeals were accordingly dismissed.

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

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for interest expenditure, finding sufficient interest-free funds. However, it upheld the disallowance of administrative expenses, noting the assessee's failure to demonstrate expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IA deduction based on prior years' orders.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was aware of the requirement to file the SFT, there was an issue with the service of notices. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,800/-.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application without considering the materials available on record. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in pursuing proceedings, the gross amount of share transactions could not be treated as income. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's payment to the builder for construction should be considered as construction of a new house, extending the time limit to three years. The Tribunal also noted the AO had accepted a similar claim for the assessee's brother, implying inconsistency.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for interest expenditure, finding sufficient interest-free funds. However, it upheld the disallowance of administrative expenses, noting the assessee's failure to demonstrate expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IA deduction based on prior years' orders.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay due to financial crisis, which was not controverted by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the penalty was not attracted under Section 273B of the Act.

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's letter stating the tax effect was NIL but they wished to proceed on merit. The appeals were disposed of by common order.

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's letter stating the tax effect was NIL and that they wished to proceed on merit. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the Revenue's appeal first on the issue of maintainability.

The Tribunal held that the quantification of penalty depends on the addition made to the income. Since the addition was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.