ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial details including addresses, PAN, and income tax returns for some recipients. Considering the multi-level marketing business model, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo verification.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned and that such disallowance cannot be added for computing book profits under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 56F was directory in nature prior to April 1, 2014, and became mandatory only from that date for electronic filing. Since the assessment year was 2012-13, the belated filing of Form 56F should not be a bar to claiming the deduction, especially as it was filed before the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the application could not be denied solely on the ground of being filed after the initial due date, especially considering subsequent extensions provided by CBDT circulars. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was incorrect as there was no material to support the conclusion that the entire marketing expense was in the nature of gifts to doctors. The Assessing Officer's reasoned disallowance of 10% was considered neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is not null and void if the death was not known to the department and assessment proceedings had commenced. However, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to bring legal heirs on record and provide an opportunity for a hearing on merits.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the special audit (Grounds 1-3), the assessee did not press these grounds of appeal and hence they were dismissed as not pressed. Concerning the addition of Rs. 55,784/- under Section 69C (undisclosed cash expenses), the Tribunal held that the 'high credit' amount in the CIBIL report does not represent a payment made by the assessee. Furthermore, the payment date of 23 December 2005 falls in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), not the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the year under consideration, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,13,86,362/- on account of capital gains on the alleged sale of Thaltej land, the judgment was incomplete and did not record the Tribunal's decision on this issue. The operative direction was to allow the appeal on the cash expense issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the supplier, violating principles of natural justice. The matter requires further examination, including verification of loan sources and supplier genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10IC within the stipulated time is a procedural matter and should not deny the substantive right to avail the lower tax rate. The intention to opt for the lower tax rate was clearly declared in the tax audit report filed before the due date.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the supplier, violating principles of natural justice. The matter requires further examination, including verification of loan sources and supplier genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of disallowance of professional and consultancy fees was justified as taxes were not required to be withheld. However, the addition of unsecured loans was deleted as the assessee had repaid the amounts and the primary evidence was a retracted statement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances of the assessee's death and the genuine reasons for the delay in communication to the tax consultant. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's wife, being a housewife and illiterate with minor children, had genuine reasons for not immediately informing the tax consultant after her husband's sudden death. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had e-filed the appeal before the CIT(A) in May 2016, which was ignored by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested therein, in accordance with the Income Tax Statute and the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this order should not be taken as a precedent due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for such applications to June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to make a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of disallowance of professional and consultancy fees was justified as taxes were not required to be withheld. However, the addition of unsecured loans was deleted as the assessee had repaid the amounts and the primary evidence was a retracted statement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the exceptional circumstances and the negligence of the previous representative. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It allowed a portion of the salary paid to the assessee's son as a business expenditure and allowed the deduction under Section 80C for LIC premium. However, it upheld a part of the addition related to other business expenses due to non-compliance with Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat expenditure on jigs and fixtures as capital expenditure and allow depreciation. The ground regarding management charges was dismissed as withdrawn due to a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) settlement. The issue of working capital adjustment was set aside to the TPO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not attracted in the case. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions for invoking Section 56(2)(viia), which include the requirement that the shares received must be of a company 'not being a company in which the public are substantially interested.' The Tribunal noted that the shares purchased by the assessee were of Suraj Ltd. (formerly Suraj Stainless Ltd.), which was a listed company and therefore a company in which the public are substantially interested. As this condition was not fulfilled, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) could not be invoked. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 8,18,11,345/- treating the difference between the purchase price and the fair market value as 'Income from Other Sources' was deleted. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had correctly observed that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia)(ii) were not attracted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.9,34,250/- made by the AO, which was paid by cheque, was not justified as these payments were duly recorded in the assessee's books of account and reflected in her Axis Bank account, and these entries were not disputed by the AO. Regarding the cash component of Rs.7,86,450/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee consistently denied making such payment, and the AO had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to substantiate this addition. The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition solely based on seized data and statements of searched persons without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them, which is against the principles of natural justice. Respectfully following judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.9,34,250/- and also deleted the addition of Rs.7,86,450/-. The Tribunal did not adjudicate grounds 1 and 2 as the assessee decided not to press them.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of trading loss was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted through banking channels, dematerialized accounts, and supported by valid contract notes, and there was no direct evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent arrangement.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of trading loss was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted through banking channels, dematerialized accounts, and supported by valid contract notes, and there was no direct evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent arrangement.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of trading loss was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted through banking channels, dematerialized accounts, and supported by valid contract notes, and there was no direct evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent arrangement.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of trading loss was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted through banking channels, dematerialized accounts, and supported by valid contract notes, and there was no direct evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent arrangement.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not attracted in the case. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions for invoking Section 56(2)(viia), which include the requirement that the shares received must be of a company 'not being a company in which the public are substantially interested.' The Tribunal noted that the shares purchased by the assessee were of Suraj Ltd. (formerly Suraj Stainless Ltd.), which was a listed company and therefore a company in which the public are substantially interested. As this condition was not fulfilled, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia) could not be invoked. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 8,18,11,345/- treating the difference between the purchase price and the fair market value as 'Income from Other Sources' was deleted. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had correctly observed that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viia)(ii) were not attracted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of trading loss was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted through banking channels, dematerialized accounts, and supported by valid contract notes, and there was no direct evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent arrangement.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a contradictory stand, as an identical transaction in the group case of the assessee's daughter-in-law was accepted as genuine. Therefore, the principle of consistency should be followed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans. The lower authorities did not adequately consider this evidence or conduct independent inquiries. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the appeal on merits and instead focusing on procedural aspects. The CPC's order under section 154 was passed in violation of natural justice principles.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity for hearing and made adverse remarks without proper verification. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the issue of unexplained cash deposits had already been adjudicated on merits by the ITAT in a prior order. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the matter could not be re-agitated.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of trading loss was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were conducted through banking channels, dematerialized accounts, and supported by valid contract notes, and there was no direct evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent arrangement.

The Tribunal held that since the loan amount was received and repaid through banking channels, the genuineness of the transaction was proved. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing such applications till June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications for 80G approval until June 30, 2024. The assessee was granted liberty to make a fresh application within this extended period.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s decision to be hyper-technical and that the assessee had a genuine grievance regarding the reduction in refund. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the adjustment amounts and the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular dated April 2024 extended the time limit for such applications to June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to make a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the time limit for such applications till June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, considering the genuine reason for non-contestation before lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT had extended the time limit for such applications till June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the time limit for filing such applications till June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to make a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT had extended the time limit for filing such applications till June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT had extended the time limit for such applications to June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within the extended period.