ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal found that the Employees' Provident Fund contributions were remitted within the prescribed time, with the error being a typographical mistake in the audit report. The disallowance made by the CPC was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding of rejecting the books of account and making a GP addition of Rs. 96,00,000/- was not disturbed, as the assessee's counsel could not advance convincing arguments against it. Similarly, concerning the addition for excess stock, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 96,00,000/- (telescoped against GP addition), as it was based on factual findings of excess stock found during the survey. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had been reasonable in allowing relief where excess stock was explained. The ratio is that where a survey reveals excess stock and discrepancies in books, and the assessee fails to provide cogent reasons for GP variations or credible explanations for unexplained investments, additions based on these findings are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 92BA(i) of the Income-tax Act, which deals with Specified Domestic Transactions, was omitted from the statute effective April 1, 2017. Therefore, invoking this section for the assessment year 2015-16 was without basis and jurisdiction.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. This request was made because the assessee had received relief in the order giving effect to the revision, passed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the service tax deduction was not a double deduction, as the assessee had correctly accounted for gross and net receipts. The Tribunal also found that the disallowed salary expense pertained to another employee, not the wife, and directed deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations, bank statements showing loan disbursement and repayment, and details of the source of funds for the lender. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee had fulfilled the basic conditions for claiming exemption under Section 54F by investing in a new asset within the prescribed period, and denial of exemption merely for procedural lapses was illogical.

The Tribunal held that the AO had valid reasons for rejecting the books of accounts due to the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide necessary documents. The estimation of income at 10% was also considered reasonable.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the time limit for filing fresh applications for registration. The assessee intended to file a new application within this extended period.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals concerning penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, finding that the assessee had provided acceptable explanations for loan repayments, which were also accepted by a previous Tribunal order. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals concerning penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, finding that the assessee had provided acceptable explanations for loan repayments, which were also accepted by a previous Tribunal order. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, holding that the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is the law of the land and that the assessee's claim for benefit based on a pending High Court case was not maintainable.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the NFAC and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate by filing necessary details before the NFAC.

The tribunal was unable to pass an order on the merits of the case due to the absence of the assessee, their counsel, and any supporting documentation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were unabated assessments. Following the Supreme Court's decision in 'Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.', which upheld the principles laid down in 'CIT vs. Kabul Chawla' and 'Saumya Construction', the Tribunal ruled that no addition can be made in respect of completed or unabated assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition for provision of services, the fundamental requirement for making additions under Section 153A in unabated years is the existence of incriminating material. Since no such material was found, the assessment orders for these years were deemed to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were unabated assessments. Following the Supreme Court's decision in 'Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.', which upheld the principles laid down in 'CIT vs. Kabul Chawla' and 'Saumya Construction', the Tribunal ruled that no addition can be made in respect of completed or unabated assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition for provision of services, the fundamental requirement for making additions under Section 153A in unabated years is the existence of incriminating material. Since no such material was found, the assessment orders for these years were deemed to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were unabated assessments. Following the Supreme Court's decision in 'Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.', which upheld the principles laid down in 'CIT vs. Kabul Chawla' and 'Saumya Construction', the Tribunal ruled that no addition can be made in respect of completed or unabated assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition for provision of services, the fundamental requirement for making additions under Section 153A in unabated years is the existence of incriminating material. Since no such material was found, the assessment orders for these years were deemed to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were unabated assessments. Following the Supreme Court's decision in 'Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.', which upheld the principles laid down in 'CIT vs. Kabul Chawla' and 'Saumya Construction', the Tribunal ruled that no addition can be made in respect of completed or unabated assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition for provision of services, the fundamental requirement for making additions under Section 153A in unabated years is the existence of incriminating material. Since no such material was found, the assessment orders for these years were deemed to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were unabated assessments. Following the Supreme Court's decision in 'Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.', which upheld the principles laid down in 'CIT vs. Kabul Chawla' and 'Saumya Construction', the Tribunal ruled that no addition can be made in respect of completed or unabated assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition for provision of services, the fundamental requirement for making additions under Section 153A in unabated years is the existence of incriminating material. Since no such material was found, the assessment orders for these years were deemed to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, holding that the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is the law of the land and that the assessee's claim for benefit based on a pending High Court case was not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals concerning penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, finding that the assessee had provided acceptable explanations for loan repayments, which were also accepted by a previous Tribunal order. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals concerning penalties under Sections 271D and 271E, finding that the assessee had provided acceptable explanations for loan repayments, which were also accepted by a previous Tribunal order. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not independently adjudicated the assessee's alternative plea regarding preliminary expenses and remanded the issue for proper adjudication. For transfer pricing issues, the Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine the matter considering the assessee's manufacturing activities and sale transactions.

The Tribunal held that the loss on sale of government securities and depreciation claimed by the bank are allowable as business loss. The classification of securities as HTM or AFS by RBI does not restrict the allowability of such business losses under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had valid jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had not conducted the necessary inquiries. The PCIT's order setting aside the AO's assessment and directing a fresh assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the loss on sale of government securities and depreciation claimed by the bank are allowable as business loss. The classification of securities as HTM or AFS by RBI does not restrict the allowability of such business losses under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly served notices and given an opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was incorrect, considering the insertion of Section 80G(5B) and the CBDT Circular No. 779. Since the trust had not incurred any expenditure on religious purposes, it was eligible for 80G approval.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash credits and investments, including bank statements and promoter details. The genuineness of the transactions was established.

The Tribunal held that the mismatch in depreciation and the claim for additional depreciation needed to be verified on merits. It also noted that while a fresh claim for gratuity deduction could not be made under Section 154, the assessee had the right to pursue such claims at higher forums.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,89,141/- (Rs. 4,11,500/- minus Rs. 2,22,359/-) made under Section 69A of the Act is confirmed, as the assessee conceded this portion of the addition. Regarding the remaining amount of Rs. 2,22,359/-, the Tribunal noted the assessee's explanations for opening cash balance (Rs. 1,01,859/-), gift (Rs. 48,500/-), unrealized rent (Rs. 48,500/-), and loans (Rs. 23,500/-). However, the judgment does not explicitly state the finding on each of these sub-points or the final decision on the Rs. 2,22,359/-. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's contention regarding the adjustment of seized cash against advance tax or self-assessment tax liability. It reasoned that Explanation 2 to Section 132B explicitly excludes advance tax from existing liability. Furthermore, adjustment against seized assets is only for existing tax liability or liability determined subsequently, not self-assessment tax determined by the assessee. The assessee's application for release of seized assets was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed in the first proviso to Section 132B, rendering it non-entertainable. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not bound to release the cash. The ratio is that seized assets can only be adjusted against specific types of tax liabilities as defined in Section 132B, and procedural timelines for release applications must be strictly adhered to.

The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be decided based on its previous order for identical appeals. The previous order dealt with the maintainability of grounds raised before the CIT(A) and the merits of the assessee's contentions regarding set off of losses.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations are distinct from income derived from property held under trust and are not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(a). Exemption for corpus donations is specifically provided under Section 11(1)(d).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deeming the assessee's contentions as non-maintainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee's arguments were within the purview of the directions given by the ITAT in the first round.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in holding the assessee's contentions as non-maintainable. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and the directions of the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's contentions as beyond the scope of the ITAT's directions. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deeming the assessee's contentions as non-maintainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee's arguments were within the purview of the directions given by the ITAT in the first round.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The surrounding circumstances and adverse evidence indicated that the transactions were sham and designed to introduce unaccounted money as exempt LTCG.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s second order was also cryptic and did not adjudicate the matter on merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made submissions and requested admission of additional evidence, which were not properly considered.

The Tribunal restored the penalty matter to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done because the quantum appeal was also being re-adjudicated by the CIT(A), and it was deemed proper to consider the penalty along with it.