ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme benefits. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the method of measuring the distance of the land from the municipal limits for the purpose of Section 2(14) of the Act was crucial. The AO's reliance on Google Maps was found to be incorrect for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was hiring trucks on a need basis from the open market, and these were not sub-contracts. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194C for TDS deduction were not applicable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme benefits. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed an order on the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the Rs. 6.85 crores adjustment was related to bogus purchases and had been accounted for in the preceding year, and was again included in the current year's sales. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the capital gain should not be taxed in AY 2013-14 as the revenue had accepted the same in AY 2014-15 for the co-owner, preventing double taxation. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of labour charges to 10% of the disputed amount, considering the nature of business and higher GP rate. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A in excess of exempt income, following the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities. It allowed the appeal regarding the addition for commission payments, finding no expenditure was claimed. It also allowed the appeal concerning the outstanding balance, holding that the difference was due to an opening balance adjustment and not income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of labour charges to 10% of the disputed amount, considering the nature of business and higher GP rate. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A in excess of exempt income, following the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of labour expenses was not justified as the assessee had followed a proper process of obtaining quotations and the revenue failed to prove the expenses were excessive. The car hiring charges were held to fall under Section 194-I and since the amount was below the TDS threshold, no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed by the assessee cannot be disallowed solely because they were incurred for the business of the partnership firm and claimed by the partner individually. They reversed the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in levying penalties under sections 271D and 271E as only a Joint Commissioner has the power to impose such penalties. Appeals related to these penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in levying penalties under sections 271D and 271E as only a Joint Commissioner has the power to impose such penalties. Appeals related to these penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) is applicable, and the issue of whether the investment was made from own funds needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer based on the overall financial position. The additional ground regarding Section 80-IB(11A) was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The acquisition and sale of shares were supported by documentary evidence like contract notes, demat accounts, and banking channels, and the revenue failed to provide cogent material to prove collusion or manipulation.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on assumption without concrete evidence. The assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, and the department failed to prove any nexus between interest-bearing funds and the advance. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal on merits with a reasoned order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires incriminating material to be found during the search. Since no such material was found, the penalty was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of income by the CIT(A) was not pressed by the Revenue. Regarding disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow expenses incurred for claims not yet admitted by FCI, but remanded the quantum for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the CIT(A) allowed a partial disallowance of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of income by the CIT(A) was not pressed by the Revenue. Regarding disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow expenses incurred for claims not yet admitted by FCI, but remanded the quantum for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the CIT(A) allowed a partial disallowance of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in levying penalties under sections 271D and 271E as only a Joint Commissioner has the power to impose such penalties. Appeals related to these penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the investment in property was not a trade advance and thus taxable as income, as no firm was in existence at the time of payment. The delayed deposit of PF and ESIC contributions was also confirmed as disallowable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in levying penalties under sections 271D and 271E as only a Joint Commissioner has the power to impose such penalties. Appeals related to these penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in levying penalties under sections 271D and 271E as only a Joint Commissioner has the power to impose such penalties. Appeals related to these penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of design expenses to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to unclear distinctions from prior orders. The disallowance of provident fund expenses was upheld following the Gujarat High Court decision, and the scholarship expense disallowance was also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires incriminating material to be found during the search. Since no such material was found, the penalty was unjustified.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal on merits with a reasoned order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in levying penalties under sections 271D and 271E as only a Joint Commissioner has the power to impose such penalties. Appeals related to these penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 32(1)(iia) allowing additional depreciation for distribution-only companies was effective from April 1, 2017, and thus not applicable to the assessment year 2015-16. The PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order.

The Tribunal restored the issue of belated PF/ESI payments to the Assessing Officer for verification of the grace period claim. For the interest disallowance, the Tribunal also restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the overall financial position and cash flow to determine if advances were made from own funds.

The Tribunal directed the AO to adjust the assessee's suo moto disallowance of Rs. 4,144/- with the disallowance made by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding agricultural income and allowed the appeal on this ground. Regarding cash credits and investments, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of telescoping for a specific amount, preventing double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the issue of farmers' loan write-offs needed to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication based on the nature of the transactions. The disallowance of gratuity premium was deleted, finding no double deduction was claimed.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of income by the CIT(A) was not pressed by the Revenue. Regarding disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow expenses incurred for claims not yet admitted by FCI, but remanded the quantum for fresh adjudication. Subsequently, the CIT(A) allowed a partial disallowance of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the investment in property was not a trade advance and thus taxable as income, as no firm was in existence at the time of payment. The delayed deposit of PF and ESIC contributions was also confirmed as disallowable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on assumption and not concrete evidence. The assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, and the department failed to establish a nexus between interest-bearing funds and the advance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not verified the assessee's claim that the recipient had disclosed the interest income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for verification and a speaking order.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivaad se Vishwas' scheme for dispute resolution.

The Tribunal held that the difference in stock, while suspicious, did not automatically imply unoffered job work income. It also noted that Section 68 was not applicable as there were no unexplained cash credits.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenses on capital WIP was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's case is duly supported by a series of documents, including the registered deed dated 27.03.2012, details of payment received, and the mention of handing over possession to the purchaser. The Tribunal noted that while the registration might have been recorded later on 17.04.2015, this could be due to heavy workload at the year-end. Considering the sale deed, consideration paid, possession handed over, government seal, stamp duty paid, and the execution date of the sale deed as 27.03.2012, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessee's claim that the transaction took place in Assessment Year 2012-13 and not 2013-14. Consequently, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act for escaping assessment in AY 2013-14 was quashed as it had no legal basis. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivaad se Vishwas' scheme for dispute resolution.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenses on capital WIP was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the assessee's claim that the recipient had paid taxes on the interest income. The AO was directed to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law after verification.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the material defect of being filed in the name of a deceased person and the lack of proper legal heir substitution. The non-cooperative attitude of the appellant was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which enhanced the mandatory limit for Revenue appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the nexus theory applied by the lower authorities was not appropriate when mixed funds were available. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the overall financial position and determine if interest-free funds were utilized for capital work-in-progress or advances.

The Tribunal held that the 15% disallowance on purchases was on the higher side and restricted it to 5%, aligning with a previous co-ordinate bench decision. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of a later CBDT circular and High Court judgments, as these were not available to the lower authorities.