ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — December 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 upheld the disallowances and additions made by the lower authorities, including disallowance of service tax, various expenses, purchases, and additions under Section 14A. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also confirmed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it relevant to the issues. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment in light of this new evidence.

The tribunal upheld the disallowances and additions made by the lower authorities, including disallowance of service tax, various expenses, purchases, and additions under Section 14A. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the factual contentions of the assessee regarding no claim of LTCG and no such investment were not considered by the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue needs to be reconsidered.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did incur VAT expenses on deemed imports, it was unclear if these were claimed as an expense in the profit and loss account. For this limited purpose, the Tribunal found the PCIT's order to be correct.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income was earned. It also upheld the deletion of interest on capital advances due to sufficient interest-free funds. The deduction under Section 80IA was allowed, and depreciation on costs for effective windmill functioning was also upheld.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis for the penalty was deleted by the ITAT, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission for withdrawal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the submitted Form No. 5. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that expenses for which bills were raised in the current year, even if pertaining to earlier periods, are allowable if the liability arose in the current year. However, sales promotion and commission expenses related to earlier sales were disallowed as prior period expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to work-in-progress, relying on previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. It also confirmed the deletion of the interest component of the Section 14A disallowance, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act (No. 2) 2014, restricting disallowance to 30% of expenses for non-deduction of TDS, is retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to 30% of the impugned interest expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to work-in-progress, relying on previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. It also confirmed the deletion of the interest component of the Section 14A disallowance, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to justify the genuineness of purchases, and therefore, could not escape the penalty provisions even if the income was determined on an estimated basis. The penalty order was found to be within the time limit.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not maintainable. It reasoned that the addition was based on a deeming provision (Section 50C) and there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the issue of importing disallowances made under Section 14A into the computation of book profit under Section 115JB is a debatable issue. Therefore, such rectification cannot be made under Section 154 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable as the conditions stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 were not met. The AO failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and the reopening was solely based on an audit objection after more than four years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction, while disallowed, was not necessarily a deliberate act of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Given that similar deductions were allowed in previous years and the relevant judicial pronouncements were not available at the time of filing the return, the claim was considered an 'inaccurate claim' rather than 'furnishing inaccurate particulars'.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had inadvertently dismissed the electronic appeal as a duplicate. The tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the electronic appeal.

The Tribunal found that some details were filed by the assessee but might not have been considered by the CIT. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the issue for de-novo adjudication.

The tribunal corrected the cause titles for both appeals to accurately reflect the appellant and respondent for each case. This ensures the correct parties are associated with the respective judgments.

The Tribunal held that the interest cost was incurred with respect to a capital asset (land) not put to use in the year under consideration. Therefore, it should be capitalized, and no deduction is available under the relevant sections.

The Tribunal held that the advances and deposits, not returned to customers for many years and with no correspondence, had become the assessee's own money. Therefore, Section 41(1) was applicable, and the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the interest cost was incurred with respect to a capital asset (land) not put to use in the year under consideration. Therefore, it should be capitalized, and no deduction is available under the relevant sections.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was not in accordance with law. It found that the AO had conducted inquiries, and the Pr. CIT's differing opinion did not automatically render the AO's order erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized that revisionary powers require more than just a difference of opinion.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was unjustified as the assessee's claim for discount and rate difference had been consistently allowed in earlier assessment years up to the Tribunal level. The AO failed to provide any evidence to suggest the claim was not genuine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of 50% of the R&D expenses was an 'inaccurate claim' but not 'inaccurate particulars of income' as there was no dishonest intent. The penalty provisions under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07. For other assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with some issues being set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to cancel the registration. It found that the trust funds were utilized for the benefit of trustees and related entities, violating the provisions of Section 13(1) and consequently Section 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable as the claim for exemption was genuine and there was no deliberate concealment. The Tribunal noted that penalty was deleted for a co-owner in identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable because the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were used against him and to rebut the seized documents. Furthermore, the co-owner of the land had no addition made in his hands for the same transaction.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, rendering the Revenue's appeal infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had not traded in the said scrip and the AO had failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating there was no evidence from the Revenue to suggest the assessee carried out any transactions in the scripts of M/s Swarnsarita Gems Ltd.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of opening cash balance to the AO for fresh adjudication, noting the assessee's claim that it could be substantiated. Similarly, the issue of cash sales was remanded for fresh adjudication after verifying evidence, as the AO's basis for addition was not clear.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced sufficient evidence regarding the source of cash deposits before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for proper adjudication of additional evidence and verification of the source of deposits.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the Trust was operational and approved, and there was no evidence that the donation was returned to the assessee. Relying on a previous identical case, the Tribunal found the assessee's claim to be valid.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the Trust was operational and approved, and the subsequent investigation into the Trust's activities could not be used to deny the deduction. The Tribunal also noted the lack of cross-examination for trustees whose statements were used against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the Trust was operational and approved, and the subsequent investigation into the Trust's activities could not be used to deny the deduction. The Tribunal also noted the lack of cross-examination for trustees whose statements were used against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities' reasoning for disallowing the deduction on the Pune property was insufficient. The Assessing Officer should have conducted further inquiries before rejecting the claim.

The assessee's counsel, on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the oral submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, leading to a full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO is bound to compute capital gains by deducting expenditure and cost of acquisition, including indexation benefits. The AO failed to ascertain the status of the land and provide indexation.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient cause. The CIT(A) ought to have taken a lenient view and decided the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated a clear correlation between the sale proceeds and the investment in new agricultural land within the stipulated period. Therefore, the disallowance of the deduction under Section 54B was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that if an assessment is re-opened for a specific reason and no addition is made on that ground, the Assessing Officer cannot make an addition on a different issue that came to notice during reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the shares were purchased long back and held for over 10 years. There was no evidence to treat the investment as bogus.