ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had not received any share application money from the alleged company. Since there was no credit in the books of accounts, Section 68 was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions on issues not covered by the limited scrutiny. Since the assessment order was deemed invalid due to exceeding jurisdiction, other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing reasons or deciding the appeal on merits, violating natural justice principles. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed a duplicate appeal. The Revenue's representative admitted this and requested to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without proper reasoning and without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without proper reasoning and without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as their dispute settlement was approved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV Scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee's mistake in claiming exemption was bonafide. The assessee had disclosed the transaction in audited accounts and offered the income to tax before detection by the AO.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, including the source of funds. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that TDS under Section 194 is not required to be deducted when loans are advanced to a concern in which a shareholder of the assessee company is a member and has substantial interest, if the payee is not a registered shareholder. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that TDS under Section 194 is only required when payments are made to registered shareholders. Since the loans were advanced to group companies that were not shareholders of the appellant, the obligation to deduct TDS did not arise.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had only received Rs. 6 lakhs and repaid it within the same financial year. The Tribunal noted that the repayment was established by documentary evidence and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A as the additional evidence was forwarded to the AO, who provided a remand report confirming the genuineness of most transactions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order granting substantial relief was upheld.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on an estimated basis without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The disallowance of expenses was purely ad-hoc.

The Tribunal held that the company, M/s. Mehta Air Travels Pvt. Ltd., was struck off from the records of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) on 18.05.2011. Consequently, it was no longer in existence on the date the assessment order was passed (11.09.2015). The Tribunal reasoned that in the absence of an existing company, there cannot be any director to sign verifications, make compliances, or reply to notices from the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the assessment order passed against a non-existent company is not valid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order. The ratio of this decision is that assessment proceedings initiated or continued against a company that has been struck off from the ROC records are invalid. The assessment order for Assessment Year 2008-09 was set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that new claims made by the assessee require verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the exact exempt income and calculation of disallowance.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that new claims made by the assessee require verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the exact exempt income and calculation of disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the investments in shares were made for strategic purposes to gain controlling interest in other companies, which is considered for business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenses was not justified.