ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 regarding job work payments, as the AO had examined the issue and the onus is on the revenue to prove unreasonableness. The Tribunal restored other issues to the AO for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment application, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal regarding exemption under Section 11 was allowed in favor of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court, the penalty levied for concealment of income is liable to be deleted. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the trademark license utilization fees based on previous years' consistent rulings. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the PF/ESIC contribution disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the impounded Annexure A/5 was a vital book of accounts and the receipts recorded therein, not offered to tax, were unexplained cash credits. The appeals were dismissed due to lack of proper records and rejection of books by the AO.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains related to export business are eligible for deduction under Section 10B and 80IA. It also ruled that the sale of scrap generated from manufacturing activities is eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that since the bills for sales promotion expenses were found to be bogus and there was no evidence of distribution of gifts, the entire expenses should be disallowed. The CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 12.5% was deemed flawed and unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and had not considered the submissions and reconciliations filed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the impounded Annexure A/5 was a vital book of accounts and the receipts recorded therein, not offered to tax, were unexplained cash credits. The appeals were dismissed due to lack of proper records and rejection of books by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that he had no power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B was legally correct. The assessee's remedy was to approach the jurisdictional CIT/PCIT/DIT for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the trademark license utilization fees based on previous years' consistent rulings. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the PF/ESIC contribution disallowance.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were deleted in the assessee's own case by the ITAT, the penalty is also liable to be set aside. The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had found no fault attributable to the assessee for the broker's actions and lacked corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding deferred revenue expenditure and miscellaneous losses. It partly allowed the appeal concerning capital grants and subsidies by remitting the issue to the AO. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding deferred revenue expenditure and miscellaneous losses. It partly allowed the appeal concerning capital grants and subsidies by remitting the issue to the AO. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding deferred revenue expenditure and miscellaneous losses. It partly allowed the appeal concerning capital grants and subsidies by remitting the issue to the AO. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding deferred revenue expenditure and miscellaneous losses. It partly allowed the appeal concerning capital grants and subsidies by remitting the issue to the AO. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the bills for sales promotion expenses were found to be bogus and there was no evidence of distribution of gifts, the entire expenses should be disallowed. The CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 12.5% was deemed flawed and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the impounded Annexure A/5 was a vital book of accounts and the receipts recorded therein, not offered to tax, were unexplained cash credits. The appeals were dismissed due to lack of proper records and rejection of books by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of delay after giving a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund is justified if not deposited before the due date prescribed under the relevant Act, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income. The jurisdictional High Court's decisions were followed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding deferred revenue expenditure and miscellaneous losses. It partly allowed the appeal concerning capital grants and subsidies by remitting the issue to the AO. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the block assessment proceedings under section 158BD against SG were invalid as the information was not based on any search action and satisfaction was recorded after issuing the notice. The Tribunal also found that the addition made by the AO in SG's hands regarding cash withdrawal was based on a misunderstanding of fixed deposit entries.

The Tribunal held that the block assessment proceedings under section 158BD against SG were invalid as the information was not based on any search action and satisfaction was recorded after issuing the notice. The Tribunal also found that the addition made by the AO in SG's hands regarding cash withdrawal was based on a misunderstanding of fixed deposit entries.

The Tribunal held that the block assessment proceedings under section 158BD against SG were invalid as the information was not based on any search action and satisfaction was recorded after issuing the notice. The Tribunal also found that the addition made by the AO in SG's hands regarding cash withdrawal was based on a misunderstanding of fixed deposit entries.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions, thus allowing the revenue's appeal on this ground. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of expenditure disallowance, finding that the assessee had commenced business operations.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing claims for small and low-value items written off and miscellaneous losses. The penalty issue was dismissed as the quantum issue was remanded.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing claims for small and low-value items written off and miscellaneous losses. The penalty issue was dismissed as the quantum issue was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to a lack of detailed inquiry. The AO had not conducted sufficient verification of the accommodation entries, relying only on replies received through post and failing to investigate other parties involved.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee's claim of using own funds for interest-free loans was not raised earlier. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification.

The Tribunal held that interest expenses attributable to investments in land and interest-free advances are not deductible. However, interest expenses on loans diverted for partnership capital contributions and interest-bearing advances are deductible. The addition on account of unexplained cash expenses was deleted as they were recorded in the cash book. The disallowance of car expenses was also deleted, considering the assessee's income from partnership firms.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for a fresh adjudication and the Revenue's lack of objection, decided to restore the issue to the AO. The assessee was given an opportunity to submit necessary documentary evidence to justify the claimed costs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had already offered the profit from the intra-day share transaction in its profit and loss account. Therefore, making a separate addition would lead to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for the gifts received from relatives, including bank statements and confirmations, and that the source of funds in the hands of the donors (proceeds from ancestral land sale) was not doubted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty related to sundry creditors as the addition was deleted by ITAT in quantum appeal. Penalties for the Section 35D disallowance and the AIR information addition were also set aside, deeming them debatable or unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A. It noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments, and relied on jurisdictional High Court and Special Bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that while foreign tax credit under Section 91 is to be calculated on net income, any portion of foreign tax not eligible for credit under Section 91 can be claimed as a business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A for administrative expenses, directing verification of actual expenses. For book profit computation under Section 115JB, the Tribunal directed disallowance at 1% of exempt income, deviating from the Section 14A computation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's disallowances were ad-hoc and lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal stated that the quantum of salary paid to employees is the assessee's prerogative and cannot be arbitrarily questioned based on turnover fluctuations.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing claims for small and low-value items written off and miscellaneous losses. The penalty issue was dismissed as the quantum issue was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to save money from her business activities in earlier years and that the cash deposits could not be entirely disbelieved. Therefore, the addition made by the authorities below was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the agreement was entered into to secure the trust's interests and manage the hospital professionally, not to benefit private individuals. It found that no part of the trust's income was applied for the benefit of related persons, and the trust itself benefited from the arrangement by reducing its losses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and considered the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the revisionary order passed by the Principal CIT was unsustainable.

The tribunal held that the assessee has a right to appeal against an intimation under section 143(1). Therefore, the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is liable for capital gains tax on her 1/4th share of the property in the year the registered sale deed was executed, as the terms of the earlier agreement to sell were not reflected in the final sale deed and possession was not demonstrably transferred.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is liable for capital gains tax on her 1/4th share of the property in the year the registered sale deed was executed, as the terms of the earlier agreement to sell were not reflected in the final sale deed and possession was not demonstrably transferred.