ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2022

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 condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause. It held that the assessee's explanation for the difference in receipts, attributing it to work-in-progress or booking in subsequent years based on acceptance by the other party, was substantiated and valid. The addition was therefore deleted.

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 Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of unaccounted investment or cash payments to outgoing doctors. A coordinate bench had previously ruled similarly, and the High Court dismissed Revenue's appeals due to tax effect.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the CIT(A) erred in partly sustaining the upward adjustment for corporate guarantee commission. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals on various grounds, including disallowance of business loss, expenditure under Section 35-D, depreciation, and provision for leave encashment for MAT income.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the taxability of the capital contribution were decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) did not sustain. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty in part for AY 2008-09 and the penalty for AY 2010-11 was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that filing a return in response to a notice under Section 148, which was accepted by the AO, cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 80IA, holding that statutory tax deductions available to an amalgamating company are also applicable to the assessee company. The Tribunal remanded the Section 14A issue back to the AO for proper verification. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning Section 115JB, relying on a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly examined the issue of land vacation compensation charges, making necessary inquiries and applying his mind. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order on this issue was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the mistake in offering excess salary income was apparent from the record, as Form 16 and Form 26AS were available to the department. Therefore, the rectification under Section 154 was permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not estopped from claiming relief for an over-assessment, even if it was due to its own mistake. The Revenue has a duty to assess the correct income as per law.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases established that late payment of employees' PF and ESIC contributions before the statutory due date for filing the income tax return is not deductible. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals regarding the taxability of the capital contribution were decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) did not sustain. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty in part for AY 2008-09 and the penalty for AY 2010-11 was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence of electronically filing Form 10B, which is mandatory. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to deny the exemption was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance is called for in respect of interest expenses under Section 14A as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. However, the disallowance for administrative expenses was confirmed as per Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of unaccounted investment or cash payments to outgoing doctors. A coordinate bench had previously ruled similarly, and the High Court dismissed Revenue's appeals due to tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases established that late payment of employees' PF and ESIC contributions before the statutory due date for filing the income tax return is not deductible. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were upheld.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be applied to book profit computation under Section 115JB. However, it directed an ad-hoc disallowance of 1% of exempted income for Section 115JB purposes. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's ground regarding depreciation on revalued assets.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was noted that an order passed under section 119(2)(b) is not appealable under sections 246A or 253 of the Act.

The Tribunal noted the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the absence of any explanation or appearance from the assessee. Consequently, the appeal could not be admitted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, noting that the AO himself had accepted the assessee's explanation in a remand report after verification. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the issue was restored back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 lockdown as a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify as an SSI unit for the deduction. However, it restored the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for recalculation and dismissed the claim for deduction on service income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify as an SSI unit for the deduction. However, it restored the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for recalculation and dismissed the claim for deduction on service income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify as an SSI unit for the deduction. However, it restored the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for recalculation and dismissed the claim for deduction on service income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify as an SSI unit for the deduction. However, it restored the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for recalculation and dismissed the claim for deduction on service income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify as an SSI unit for the deduction. However, it restored the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for recalculation and dismissed the claim for deduction on service income.

The Tribunal held that the assessing officer had conducted proper inquiries and verified records, including obtaining an Indemnity Bond. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found that the assessee had followed the procedures for claiming TDS credit in cases of mergers/demergers.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the sale of shares held as investment should be treated as short-term capital gain and not business income. The assessee's consistent classification of these shares as investments in its balance sheet and the principle of consistency supported this view.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by withdrawals from the assessee's own accounts. It also found that the investments in securities were not actual investments but day-trading transactions, and the loans from friends were genuine and sufficiently explained by confirmations and the small amounts involved.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not qualify as an SSI unit for the deduction. However, it restored the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for recalculation and dismissed the claim for deduction on service income.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the sanctioning authority (Joint Commissioner) was not competent for reassessments initiated beyond four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a previous order for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal restored the issue of trading addition to the Assessing Officer for fresh inquiry.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case with necessary records and evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance under Section 14A, the disallowance of Rs. 22,00,000 for withdrawal of right due to cash payment and lack of clarity on responsibility, and the disallowance of Rs. 7,70,000 for brokerage expenses due to lack of details.

The Tribunal held that the assessing officer had conducted proper inquiries and verified records, including obtaining an Indemnity Bond. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found that the assessee had followed the procedures for claiming TDS credit in cases of mergers/demergers.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the assessee had established the source of cash deposit from M/s. Manan Auto Link Pvt. Ltd., supported by relevant documents. The Assessing Officer failed to consider these documents properly.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, the advance to the sister concern was not subject to disallowance of interest. Regarding the loan from Ms. Rashmi Saraf, the Tribunal found that the deposit was by cheque, not cash, and the assessee had provided evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was adequately explained by earlier cash withdrawals from the same bank account, as evidenced by the bank statement. The Revenue did not establish any other source of income or that the withdrawals were utilized elsewhere.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the penalty. It was held that genuine mistakes or reasonable circumstances do not constitute concealment of income, referencing a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under section 139(4) is not considered filed under section 139(1) for the purpose of penalty under section 271AAB. Furthermore, seized cash cannot be adjusted against self-assessment tax as it is not an existing liability.