ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when additions/disallowances were made under normal provisions but tax was ultimately levied under MAT provisions (Section 115JB). This is supported by judicial precedents and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing evidence of share purchase and sale through banking channels and demat accounts. The Tribunal found no cogent material directly linking the assessee to any manipulation or bogus transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly rejected the assessee's applications for rectification under Section 154. The CIT(A)'s order was based on a binding High Court decision, and there was no apparent mistake in the order.

The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit on bogus purchases from 25% to 12.5%, citing parity with a previous ITAT decision. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the addition was based on estimation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was empowered to admit additional evidence and that the disallowances made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).

The tribunal dismissed the time-barred appeal (ITA No. 593/Ahd/2019) due to insufficient reasons for the delay. However, it allowed the appeal under Section 154 (ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019), finding an apparent error in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the valuation of the property under Section 50C.

The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of undisclosed stock was deleted by a previous order, and only a 2% profit element was confirmed. Considering this negligible amount and the change in the nature of the addition, the Tribunal held that the assessee did not deserve to be penalized for concealment of income.

The tribunal dismissed the time-barred appeal (ITA No. 593/Ahd/2019) due to insufficient reasons for the delay. However, it allowed the appeal under Section 154 (ITA No. 592/Ahd/2019), finding an apparent error in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the valuation of the property under Section 50C.

The tribunal granted the permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the entire undisclosed contract receipt should be added as income because the related expenses were already claimed in the audited accounts. It also confirmed the addition for delayed PF contribution, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction. It relied on previous ITAT decisions and a Gujarat High Court judgment that held similar donations to the same foundation were valid, as the assessee had discharged their onus and the foundation's registration was cancelled much later.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order, to the extent it addressed the assessee's application dated November 25, 2011, was not sustainable because the AO failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by Section 154(3). The issues raised on merit in that application were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The tribunal noted that the assessee was not prejudiced by the order and was willing to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue agreed with the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as unadmitted due to the delay in filing and the absence of any condonation application. The appeal was dismissed ex parte.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below did not conduct sufficient investigation to prove that the CCMs were not for rectifying genuine errors or that there was cash transfer between parties. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding that the claimed source of funds for the land purchase was not substantiated with credible evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal against the deletion of additions, holding it would amount to double addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex parte order without deciding the case on merit, even though the assessee failed to appear. The CIT(A) should have considered the assessment record and provided a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the VSV Scheme and allowed the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate afresh as the assessee had not filed an application before the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.