ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal admitted additional documents produced by the assessee, including purchase invoices and expense vouchers. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify these documents and re-adjudicate the issues.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the application for final approval within six months of receiving provisional approval. Considering the extended timelines due to subsequent circulars and the fact that similar approval was granted under Section 12AB, the rejection was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide a clear breakdown of expenses despite specific requests, and most of the trust's objects appeared religious. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not err in confirming the disallowance. The assessee had a history of suo motu disallowances in previous years, and the AO had recorded satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that the Department failed to provide concrete evidence to substantiate the cash payment. The assessee's name was not specifically mentioned in the seized documents, and there was no corroborative material.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be satisfactory and held that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. The Tribunal also noted an additional ground regarding the assessment order lacking a DIN number.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on technical grounds of delay. Considering subsequent CBDT circulars extending the due date for filing Form 10AB, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to consider CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2023, which allowed for fresh applications or treated belated applications as valid under certain circumstances. Therefore, the rejection was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 13(1)(b) should be examined at the assessment stage, not at the time of granting registration under Section 12A. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of both applications.

The Tribunal held that Section 206C(1A)/(1B) does not prescribe a specific timeline for furnishing Form 27C by the buyer to the seller. Therefore, delay in submission, if genuine, should not deny the benefit. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessment order, which treated the profit on sale of an asset of Rs. 65,42,000/- as business income instead of capital gains, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that there was no reference to any seized material found at the assessee's premises concerning the sale of assets. Respectfully following the Supreme Court judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the Assessee concerning the absence of incriminating material for making additions in search assessments. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the grounds related to the absence of incriminating material being allowed.

The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowances based on estimation without rejecting books of account are not justifiable. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not demonstrate specific defects in the books, the addition on account of increased material consumption was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessment order, which treated the profit on sale of an asset of Rs. 65,42,000/- as business income instead of capital gains, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that there was no reference to any seized material found at the assessee's premises concerning the sale of assets. Respectfully following the Supreme Court judgment in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the Assessee concerning the absence of incriminating material for making additions in search assessments. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the grounds related to the absence of incriminating material being allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the Revenue had allowed similar deductions in prior and subsequent years and that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) on income enhanced by disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The interest income from the nationalized bank was not eligible for deduction, and the AO had not properly examined the eligibility for deduction from the cooperative bank.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application, considering the subsequent extension of timelines provided by CBDT Circular No. 7/2024. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 13(1)(b) should be examined at the assessment stage, not at the time of granting registration under Section 12A. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of both applications.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-cooperative throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings, failing to provide any evidence. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the addition of the closing cash balance as income from undisclosed sources was unjustified due to incomplete inquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue authorities accepted the business income while simultaneously questioning the genuineness of the business activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence and grounds. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on legal grounds and merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive as the very basis of the addition under Section 69 was deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the penalty addition is deleted.

The Tribunal found the assessee's approach not justifiable but acknowledged that the issues were not decided on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased assessee is void ab initio and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the assessment order itself is null and void.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowance made under Section 14A for book profit computation under Section 115JB. However, it confirmed the disallowance of excess depreciation claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the evidence filed by the assessee and did not call for specific bills for fixed asset purchases. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view in accepting the share transactions as genuine, as the assessee had provided justifications for the share value and demonstrated genuine trading. The CIT had not pointed out any specific fallacy in the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge its onus of proving that the properties and investments were benami of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the income was disclosed by the actual owners in their respective returns and the CBI case did not culminate in any charges.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) was also directed to complete the process within three months.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made specific inquiries regarding the stamp duty value of the property and the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the PCIT's finding that the assessment order was erroneous due to lack of inquiry was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the evidence and principles of natural justice. Additional evidence was admitted, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While grounds related to the assessee being deceased were dismissed, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits as the CIT(A) had not considered the merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 had a typographical error regarding the assessment year, but the subject clearly indicated the correct year. However, it found that making a protective addition when a substantive addition was already made in the firm's case amounted to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that the capital introduced by a partner could not be assessed in the hands of the firm if the partner owned the funds. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, thus deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should not have invoked Section 13 at the stage of granting registration and that the issue of benefit to a particular community should be considered at the time of exemption under Section 11. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for re-examination.

The tribunal found that the lower authorities incorrectly treated the entire PF & ESI payment as belated. For AY 2019-20, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of actual belated payments. For AY 2018-19, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) was also directed to complete the process within three months.

The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) can only be invoked at the time of assessment, not during the grant of registration. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application on this ground.

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided plausible explanations for the name discrepancy and that the trust was not new, having been granted registration earlier. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) did not consider all submitted documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 19/2023, which condoned the delay in filing Form 10-IC for AY 2021-22. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 246 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It held that the assessee had provided a reasonable justification for the delay, considering the circumstances including the former consultant's inaction and the COVID-19 period.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains arising from investments in subsidiaries were capital in nature, following previous High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding R&D expenses, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction as the DSIR certification was not mandatory for the assessment year in question, citing jurisdictional High Court and ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing genuine reasons of ignorance and lack of knowledge on the part of the trustees. The matter was restored to the PCIT(E) for de novo consideration.