ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot arbitrarily reject the assessee's suo moto disallowance without assigning reasons. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in PCIT vs. Hero Corporate Service Ltd., the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot arbitrarily reject the assessee's suo moto disallowance without assigning reasons. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in PCIT vs. Hero Corporate Service Ltd., the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not in accordance with the law as the Assessing Officer's belief was not independent but borrowed from the CBI report. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 as he himself was satisfied with the assessee's explanations and documentary evidence regarding the claims. Since the PCIT found no error in the assessment order, the revisionary proceedings were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the expenses were incurred in an earlier year and capitalized, and no deduction was claimed in the profit and loss account for the year under appeal, no disallowance could be made. The expenses were also found to be out of disclosed cash.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was sustainable regarding the additional depreciation, as it was covered by a previous ITAT decision. However, for bad debts, the Tribunal found that the PCIT himself was satisfied with the assessee's explanation, thus there was no error to justify revision under Section 263.

The Tribunal noted the Liquidator's submission that they lacked sufficient information to pursue the appeal. Given the company's liquidation status and the Revenue's no objection, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee no longer wished to pursue the matter.