ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee's turnover from share transactions exceeded the limit prescribed under section 44AB, making it mandatory to maintain books of accounts and get them audited. Failure to comply attracts penalty under section 271B. Since the assessee failed to provide any material to prove otherwise, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory as it lacked a supporting affidavit from the Chartered Accountant who advised the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was an 'adventure in the nature of trade' due to the intention to sell at a profit, thus Section 50C was not applicable. Consequently, interest expenses and brought forward business losses were allowed.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable to assessment years prior to its insertion. It also found that disallowances under Section 14A were unwarranted when the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and no administrative expenses were incurred for earning tax-free income.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA, following a CBDT circular and a Supreme Court judgment. The issue related to book profits was remitted back to the AO for verification and necessary deductions.

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 The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice and the assessee's reasonable cause. The Tribunal also restored the issue of registration under Section 12AA to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging the assessee's genuine charitable activities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the conditions of Section 54B by not depositing unutilized capital gains in the Capital Gain Account Scheme and by making cash payments for property purchases. The AO's assessment lacked proper inquiry into these aspects.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was correct. The employee's contribution to PF, if not deposited by the due date, is not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that losses arising from assets covered by Section 10(38) are not includable in the computation of total income. Therefore, such losses cannot be set off against taxable income, and similarly, taxable losses cannot be set off against exempt income.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The AO was directed to analyze the applicability of various judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court decision in Bangalore Club, to the assessee's facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for the cost of acquisition based on the 1981 valuation report, as the land was inherited. The revenue could not arbitrarily determine the income without establishing the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing Long Term Capital Gain, the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 should be taken at Rs. 250/- per sq. yard, as determined by the Registered Valuer, allowing Ground No. 2 of Shri Subodh Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal. Regarding the issue of construction, the Tribunal concluded that what was transferred was non-agricultural open land without any residential construction thereon, dismissing Ground No. 3 of Shri Subodh Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal and a similar issue in Shri Rajendra Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the Act but was entitled to exemption under Section 54F of the Act, dismissing Ground No. 4 of Shri Subodh Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal and a related issue in Shri Rajendra Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal. The operative direction was to allow the cost of acquisition at Rs. 250/- per sq. yard and grant exemption under Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made merely on the basis of a retracted statement and without proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal found that the consideration per bigha was not the assessee's intention and was not paid by them.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made merely on the basis of a retracted statement and without proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal found that the consideration per bigha was not the assessee's intention and was not paid by them.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made merely on the basis of a retracted statement and without proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal found that the consideration per bigha was not the assessee's intention and was not paid by them.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made merely on the basis of a retracted statement and without proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal found that the consideration per bigha was not the assessee's intention and was not paid by them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for the cost of acquisition based on the 1981 valuation report, as the land was inherited. The revenue could not arbitrarily determine the income without establishing the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for the cost of acquisition based on the 1981 valuation report, as the land was inherited. The revenue could not arbitrarily determine the income without establishing the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing Long Term Capital Gain, the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 should be taken at Rs. 250/- per sq. yard, as determined by the Registered Valuer, allowing Ground No. 2 of Shri Subodh Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal. Regarding the issue of construction, the Tribunal concluded that what was transferred was non-agricultural open land without any residential construction thereon, dismissing Ground No. 3 of Shri Subodh Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal and a similar issue in Shri Rajendra Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54 of the Act but was entitled to exemption under Section 54F of the Act, dismissing Ground No. 4 of Shri Subodh Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal and a related issue in Shri Rajendra Laxmanbhai Makwana's appeal. The operative direction was to allow the cost of acquisition at Rs. 250/- per sq. yard and grant exemption under Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income cannot exceed the cash found during the search. The AO wrongly determined the gross profit by calculating suppressed sales beyond what was determined by the Excise Department.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made merely on the basis of a retracted statement and without proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal found that the consideration per bigha was not the assessee's intention and was not paid by them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction for the cost of acquisition based on the 1981 valuation report, as the land was inherited. The revenue could not arbitrarily determine the income without establishing the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that while additions made during assessment proceedings reach finality, penalty proceedings are distinct and require independent verification. The assessee had furnished necessary documents during penalty proceedings that were not considered by the revenue authorities, thus the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made merely on the basis of a retracted statement and without proper consideration of the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal found that the consideration per bigha was not the assessee's intention and was not paid by them.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the capital gain was short-term or long-term required a detailed analysis of facts and could not be considered a 'mistake apparent from the record' amenable to rectification under Section 154. Therefore, the AO's order under Section 154 was incorrect.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the "Vivaad se Vishwas scheme 2020" for dispute resolution. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the case to the CIT(A) for a detailed inspection and verification of the assessee's books of accounts, allowing the Assessing Officer to cross-verify.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission of documents for settlement under the VsV Scheme and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivaad se Vishwas scheme 2020'. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivaad se Vishwas scheme 2020'. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's reference to the DVO was invalid. Therefore, the valuation by the Registered Valuer was to be adopted for computing the capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer merely reproduced the earlier quashed order without providing independent reasoning. Consequently, the penalty levied was also unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all required documents, including bank statements and confirmations, to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding freight receipts and that foreign travel expenses were purely for business purposes. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the loss on account of exchange difference as on the balance sheet date is an expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s finding that MTM loss on a SWAP contract is allowable as it represents an accrued liability and not a contingent one was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding freight receipts and foreign travel expenses, and the lower authorities' observations to the contrary were incorrect. The penalty was also deemed unsustainable as the quantum appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the non-adjustment of brought forward depreciation before determining the quantum of deduction under Section 80IA is a patent mistake amenable to rectification under Section 154. Therefore, the rectification made by the AO is upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in treating a specific amount received as income for the year under consideration, as it led to double addition. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on plant and machinery for the projects.