ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2022

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on estimated additions, as the quantum additions were deleted. Therefore, the penalty levied on the disallowance of opening stock was also deleted.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on additions made on an estimated basis. It also held that if quantum additions are deleted, then penalty cannot be levied.

The Tribunal noted that the nature of the commodity transactions (capital gains, speculative, or business) was unclear due to the assessee's non-appearance. Citing precedents where commodity exchange transactions without delivery are not considered turnover for audit purposes, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on estimated additions, as the quantum additions were deleted. Therefore, the penalty levied on the disallowance of opening stock was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in allowing the admission of additional evidence. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to cash deposits and the portion of land advances representing opening cash balance, and the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as no expenditure was claimed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on estimated additions, as the quantum additions were deleted. Consequently, the grounds challenging the penalty were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to NEBU were in the nature of royalty and fees for technical services, considering the expanded definition of royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and relevant DTAA provisions. The assessee was therefore liable for short deduction of tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation as per the Income-tax Rules, even if it differs from the Companies Act rates, provided proper disclosure is made. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the premium paid on forward exchange contracts is to be amortized as an expense. It relied on Accounting Standard AS-11 and various judicial precedents, stating that the IT Act is silent on such deductions and accounting standards should be followed.

The assessee's counsel did not wish to proceed with the appeal given the circumstances. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that there was no basis to conclude that the assessee received on-money. Consequently, the additions made by estimating profits on the total turnover, including disclosed and undisclosed sales, were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the premium paid on forward exchange contracts is to be amortized as an expense. It relied on Accounting Standard AS-11 and various judicial precedents, stating that the IT Act is silent on such deductions and accounting standards should be followed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a reasonable explanation for the difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value, citing issues with the land's location and utility. The penalty was found to be unjustified as the explanation was not found to be false by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that running a hostel is akin to running an educational institution and falls within the definition of charitable purpose under Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA and exemption under Sections 11 & 12.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the issue back to the AO. The AO is to consider the matter afresh after verifying the Form 15G/15H submitted by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for exemption under Section 54F by depositing the net consideration in the capital gain account before the due date of filing the return. The delay in purchasing the new asset was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and was considered minor.

The Tribunal held that the premium paid on forward exchange contracts is to be amortized as an expense. It relied on Accounting Standard AS-11 and various judicial precedents, stating that the IT Act is silent on such deductions and accounting standards should be followed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on additions made on an estimated basis. It also held that if quantum additions are deleted, then penalty cannot be levied.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on additions made on an estimated basis. It also held that if quantum additions are deleted, then penalty cannot be levied.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on additions made on an estimated basis. It also held that if quantum additions are deleted, then penalty cannot be levied.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 58,98,404/- as unexplained cash credits. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary powers without properly considering the assessee's alternative claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT's order was found to be not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that there was no basis to conclude that the assessee received on-money. Consequently, the additions made by estimating profits on the total turnover, including disclosed and undisclosed sales, were deleted.

The Tribunal held that there was no basis to conclude that the assessee received on-money. Consequently, the additions made by estimating profits on the total turnover, including disclosed and undisclosed sales, were deleted.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted the assessee company into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). A moratorium has been imposed, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68 for unexplained loans and gifts, and the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding unexplained cash deposits as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence of agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that impairment loss, being non-operating expenditure, should be excluded from operating cost when calculating the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). It also directed that the provision for bad and doubtful debts should be allowed as a deduction while calculating book profit under Section 115JB, as it represented actual bad debts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence for the loan transaction. The addition was made solely based on the statement of a third party without disproving the assessee's evidence.

The Tribunal found that the PF payment was indeed made on 15.06.2018, as evidenced by the bank challan, and the date in the audit report was a typographical error. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) was incorrect.

The tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a new claim not made in the return, appellate authorities have the power to consider such claims. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the amortization claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for exemption under Section 10(38) as transactions were through registered brokers on a recognized stock exchange and the company was not marked as a shell company. The Tribunal also noted the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements formed the basis of the addition, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the increase in capital by substantiating the unreconciled balances with the firms. The addition made by the AO was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the lack of clear evidence of the original application being processed. The CIT's order granting registration from AY 2015-16 based on a 2014 application was upheld, and the request for retrospective registration was denied.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the actual mistake and rectification. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that patronage rebate expenses are a cost of funds and allowable under Section 37. However, the revised claim for Section 80P deduction was dismissed as it was not considered by the lower authorities in light of the patronage rebate issue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a set-off of Rs. 3 Crores paid to Relic Property Development Pvt. Ltd. against the addition. The payment was considered to be directly related to the land purchase and was rightly adjusted.

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the lack of clear evidence of the original application being processed. The CIT's order granting registration from AY 2015-16 based on a 2014 application was upheld, and the request for retrospective registration was denied.

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the lack of clear evidence of the original application being processed. The CIT's order granting registration from AY 2015-16 based on a 2014 application was upheld, and the request for retrospective registration was denied.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that identical expenses were allowed in the preceding year based on High Court rulings. The expenses were considered enabling in nature, not creating new assets with enduring benefits.

The Tribunal held that the addition for profit discrepancy was incorrect as the return of income was based on the profit and loss account, not a lump-sum statement. The disallowance of Section 80C deductions was also set aside as proof of investment was available.

The Tribunal held that the Business Transfer Agreement was a colorable device and no genuine intangible assets were acquired, thus disallowing the depreciation claim. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding sufficient interest-free funds available for investments.

The Tribunal held that the issue of capital grants, subsidies, and consumer contributions should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculation based on proportionate amounts and depreciation rates for specific assets. Regarding interest income from staff loans and advances, it was held to be part of business income, aligning with High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of capital grants, subsidies, and consumer contributions should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculation based on proportionate amounts and depreciation rates for specific assets. Regarding interest income from staff loans and advances, it was held to be part of business income, aligning with High Court decisions.